k\ 


TWO  LETTERS 

IN   REPLY   TO 

CERTAIN  PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 

REV.  DR.  SAMUEL  MILLER, 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  IN  THE 

PRESBYTERIAN  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

AT  PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BY  GEORGE  WELLER,  D.  D. 

RECTOR   OF   CHltlST   CHtJRCH,   NASHVILLE,   TENNBSSEi::. 


J 


o^  at  2:3  i;a.  ^£^  i:a.  "^^ 

OF    THK 
AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 

x>  o  IV  ^'V  T  I  o  ::v     o  ir 

SAMUEL   AGNEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 

.^et^ez 


^flA/c£/  /<ifr^§^^ 


BV  670  .W4  1836 
v^eller,  George,  1790-1841. 
Two  letters  in  reply  to 
certain  publications  of  the 


LETTERS 


IN    REPLY    TO 


CERTAIN  PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 


REV.  DR.  SAMUEL  MILLER, 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  IN  THE 

PRESBYTERIAN  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

AT  PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BY  GEORGE  WELLER,   D.  D. 

RECTOR  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH,  NASHVILLE,  TENNESSEE. 


NASHVILLE 
1836, 


A    LETTER 

TO  THE  EDITORS  OF  THE 
NASHVILLE 

AMERICAN  PRESBYTERIAN ; 

CONTAINING 

AN  EXAMNATION  OF  THE  REASONS  FOR 

''REJECTING   EPISCOPACY," 

WRITTEN 

BY  DR.  MILLER, 


REPUBLISHED  IN  SEVERAL  LATE  NUMBERS 


OF   THAT   PAPER. 


BY  AN   EPISCOPALIAN 


PRINTED  BY  W.  HASELL  HUNT  if  CO. 

1835. 


Your  paper  purports  to  be  conducted  by  on  association  of 
gentlemen:  as  I  am,  however,  wholly  ignorant  as  to  who  are 
the  individual  members  of  that  association,  no  part  of  these 
strictures  is  to  be  taken  with  a  personal  application. 

In  the  numbers  of  the  American  Presbyterian  for  May  21, 
28,  and  June  4th,  under  the  head  of  Religious,  are  several 
columns  of  matter  purporting  to  be  part  of  a  work  by  Samuel 
Miller,  D.  D,,  on  the  truly  primitive  and  apostolical  consti- 
tution of  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  4th  chapter,  which  you 
profess  to  extract,  is  stated  to  be  entitled  ^^on  the  government 
of  the  Presbyterian  Churchy 

In  our  happy  country,  every  man  is  perfectly  free  to  hold 
and  maintain  any  principles  which  may  seem  to  him  to  be 
right,  provided  he  concedes  to  others  the  same  privilege,  and 
does  not  disturb  them  in  the  peaceful  exercise  of  their  own 
opinions.  So  far,  therefore,  as  Dr.  Miller,  and  you  gentle- 
men, have  chosen  to  state  and  vindicate  your  own  opinions  in 
relation  to  the  ecclesiastical  principles  which  prevail  in  your 
own  church,  instead  of  having  any  censure  to  bestow  upon  you, 
I  would  rather  commend  your  zeal:  Those  opinions,  on  any 
subject,  must  have  small  claim  to  public  and  general  adoption, 
which  those  who  hold  them  fear  to  bring  to  light.  I  have  no 
such  fears  with  regard  to  the  claims  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
of  which  1  am  a  humble  member;  and  it  is  because  you  have 
chosen,  without  provocation,  while  professing  merely  to  defend 
Presbyterianism,  to  show  reasons  why  you,  in  the  fulness  of 
your  elevation,  are  pleased  to  reject  prelacy:  or,,  in  other 


words,  the  ecclesiastical  principles  of  your  "Episcopal  breth- 
ren," that  I  desire  your  attention  to  the  following  pages. 

I  include  you  in  the  application  of  these  strictures,  because 
the  statements  which  you  have  borrowed  from  Dr.  Miller  re- 
specting Episcopacy,  at  least  in  the  spirit  in  which  he  has 
made  them,  were,  if  information  to  the  members  of  your  own 
church  on  the  subject  of  its  government,  was  all  that  was  in- 
tended, nowise  necessary,  even  to  the  subject  itself:  Yet, 
while  those  who  profess  to  receive  Episcopacy  as  the  primi. 
tive  and  apostolic  government  of  the  church  of  Christ,  are 
h\w  in  number,  and  living  in  peace  by  your  side,  you  have 
chosen  to  avail  yourselves  of  his  labors  to  misrepresent  their 
principles,  and  deny  their  claims  to  scriptural  sanction  for  in- 
stitutions, which,  as  will  be  shown,  even  some  of  your  own 
side  have  admitted  to  be  coeval,  or  nearly  so,  with  the  apos. 
ties  themselves;  and  because,  moreover,  you  have  thus  unwit- 
tingly perhaps,  become  sponsors  for  the  long  continued  and 
vehement  animosity  of  Dr  Miller  towards  the  Episcopal 
Church;  which  may  well,  in  my  judgment,  be  compared  with 
that  feeling  of  the  Romans  against  Carthage,  which  produced 
the  well  known  declaration,  Delenda  est  Carthago! 

I  purpose,  in  the  following  remarks,  simply  to  repel,  with 
what  ability  I  mar,  your  unprovoked  assault  upon  the  Episco- 
pal Church — your  reasons  for  rejecting  prelacy.  It  is  not  my 
intention  to  copy  the  example  you  have  set  me,  by  any  ani- 
madversions whatever  upon  the  doctrines  or  discipline  of  your 
own  church.  1  am  no  assailant.  I  am  acting  wholly  and 
strictly  on  the  defensive. 

Before  proceeding  to  an  examination  of  Dr.  M's  allega- 
tions, the  position  in  which  he  has,  for  many  years  past,  pla- 
ced himself  in  relation  to  the  Episcopal  church,  demands 
some  attention  to  hisclaims  in  regard  to  authority  and  veracity. 

Dr.  M.  has  been  repeatedly,  by  Dr.  Bowden,  Dr.  Cooke, 
and  other  writers,  publicly  charged  with  misrepresenting  the 
opinions   of  the  authors  whom  he  quotes — with  misquoting 


their  language— with  omitting,  in  the  midst  of  passages  quoted, 
expressionsj  differing  entirely  from  the  tenor  he  has  given  to 
the  passage,  and  from  his  own  opinions — with  substituting  ex- 
pressions, which  would  serve  his  purpose,  in  quotations,  for 
those  which  would  not.  Some  proofs  of  the  correctness  of 
these  charges  will  be  furnished  in  the  following  pages,  and 
more  can  be  adduced  should  they  be  thought  necessary. 

In  a  kte  work,  Dr  M.,  for  what  religious  purpose  it  is  not 
easy  to  conceive,  asserted  that  a  clergyman  had  been  driven 
out  of  the  Episcopal  church  for  not  believing  in  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration.  It  was  soon  ascertained  what 
clergyman  was  referred  to;  and  the  correspondence  between 
him  and  his  bishop  having  been  published,  it  appeared,  what 
was  well  known  previously  to  all  who  had  any  interest  in  the 
matter,  (which  Dr.  M.  certainly  had  not)  that  his  renuncia- 
tion of  the  ministry  was  voluntari)  on  the  part  of  the  clergy- 
man; and  was  occasioned  by  entirely  difTerent  circumstancog 
from  those,  which  Dr.  M.  in  his  zealous  care  for  ahother 
church  than  his  own,  was  pleased  to  assign! 

In  the  same  work,  Dr.  Miller  undertook  to  discuss,  for  the 
purpose  o^ condemning ^  the  principles  and  usages  of  the  Epis. 
copal  church,  in  regard  to  baptism,  Absurdly  enough,  he 
there  actually  condemns  the  Episcopal  church  foi  not  holding 
a  doctrine,  which  is  plainly  asserted  in  some  of  the  plainest 
passages,  of  its  book  of  Common  Prayer!  The  Editor  of 
the  PhiladelpJiia  Ejnscopal  Recorder  says  of  this  matter, 
that  "Dr.  M.  has  certainly  presented  statements  on  the  sub- 
ject which  an  hour's  examination  of  the  Prayer  Book  would 
have  satisfied  him  to  be  incorrect. — How  much  is  it  to  be  re- 
gretted that  he  did  not  take  the  pains  to  ascertain  correctly 
the  language  oi"  the  only  quotation  which  he  adduces  from  the 
Prayer  Book,  or  elsewhere,  in  confirmation  of  his  statements. 
— Alas,  that  Dr.  Miller  should  have  been  so  ready  to  advance 
objections  to  a  church  of  whose  peculiarities  he  is  so  inexcusci- 
hly  ignorant^ 

A  2 


{) 

It  is  now  about  twenty  years  since  Dr.  M.  published  a 
work,  entitled.  Letters  on  the  Christian  Ministry^  of  which 
a  new  edition  has  been  published  within  the  last  4  or  5  years. 
Some  years  after  the  first  edition  of  this  work  appeared,  he 
published  another  work,  entitled  Letters  on  Unitarianism. 
In  the  first  of  these  works  he  speaks  thus  of  Ignatius,  one  of 
^\iQ  fathers  of  the  prinfiitive  church,  whom  he  also  quotes  in  his 
attack  on  Episcopacy  in  your  paper:  "That  even  the  shorter 
epistles  of  Ignatius  are  unworthy  of  confidence  as  the  genu- 
ine works  of  tho  father  whose  name  they  bear,  is  the  opinion 
of  some  of  the  ablest  and  best  judges  of  the  Protestant 
world."  Letters  on  the  Ministry,  first  ed.  p.  140. — But 
when  he  came  to  write  his  Letters  on  Unitariamsm,  he  had 
discovered  that  Ignatius  could  yield  him  some  support,  and 
he  therefore  speaks  a's  follows  of  the  identical  work,  which, 
in  the  extract  above,  he  considered  unworthy  of  confidence: 
"The  great  body  of  learned  men  consider  the  smaller  epistles 
of  Ignatius,  as,  in  the  main,  the  real  works  of  the  writer 
whose  name  they  bear."  p.  122. — This  might  be  taken  to  in- 
dicate a  serious  and  deliberate  change  of  opinion,  deserving 
commeTidalion  rather  than  censure;  but  lo  !  when  a  new 
edition  of  the  Letters  on  the  Ministry  was  to  be  published,  af- 
ter a  careful  revision  and  correction,  both  of  language  and 
sentiments,  the  original  declaration  in  relation  to  Ignatius, 
that  his  epistles  were  regarded  by  the  ablest  and  best  judges 
of  the  Protestant  world  as  unworthy  of  ccnfidenee,  had  again 
become  the  ruling  opinion;  and  now,  once  more,  when,  as  in 
the  extract  in  5  our  paper,  Ignatius  could  be  made  to  serve  a 
turn,  he  becomes,  in  Dr.  M's  opinion,  again  worthy  of  confi- 
dence !  Whether,  after  these  statements,  which  any  one  may 
verify,  Dr.  Miller  is  himself  to  be  considered  by  the  world, 
learned  a?id  unlearned,  an  authority  on  subjects  of  this  nature; 
or  even  worthy  of  confidence,  is  left  for  those  who  may  read 
these  strictures  to  judge. 

And  now  a  word  in  regard  to  the  title  of  Dr.  Miller's  work. 


from  which  your  extracts  are  rnude.  An  inJiviJual  who  was 
desirous,  tor  certain  reasons,  of  attracling  particuhir  attention, 
to  his  phice  of  business,  put  o/er  his  door  a  heelihe,  as  an 
emblem  of  his  industry  in  his  profession,  and  as  a  sign  to  those 
who  might  be  directed  to  his  establishment.  One  of  his 
neighbors  seeing,  or  thinking  that  he  saw,  that  his  brothei' 
tradesman  was  deriving  advantage  by  this  mean?,  erected  over 
his  door  also,  a  beehive,  with  the  inscription,  the  original  bee. 
hive.  The  object  was  understood,  and  a  third  individual  re-> 
solved  that  he  would  participate  also  in  the  trade  which  the 
beehive  had  attracted  to  the  vicinage;  accordingly  a  third 
beehive  w^os  soon  seen  glittering  with  gold,  and  bearing  the  yet 
more  attractive  label,  ike  true  original  beehive!  I  leave  the 
application  of  this  anecdote,  to  those  who  have  read,  or  may 
read,  the  mass  of  assertion  and  invective,  to  which  Dr.  Mil- 
ler has  given  the  title  of  the  truly  primitive,  Sfc. 

Dr.  Miller  and  the  editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian 
say  ^'We  reject  the  claims  cf  Prelacif'—'in  other  words,  you 
favor  your  "Episcopal  brethren''  so  far  as  to  tell  us  that  you 
rfject  Episcopacy!  You  then  give  us  an  unexceptionable 
statement  of  the  received  doctrine  of  Epir>copacy,  and  add, 
'■Ho  no  part  of  this  claim'''' — that  is,  the  claim  of  Episcopa- 
lians th;;t  their  church  constitution  is  primitive  and  apostolic 
— "a'oe.s  the  New  Testament  afford  the  least  countenance.'^'' — 
You  say  that  Episcopacy  is  "«  usurpation  for  ickich  there  is 
not  the  smallest  warrant  in  the  word  of  God:'''* — that  ^Hhere  is 
not  the  semblance  of  support  to  be  found  in  Scripture  for  the 
alleged  l^-ansmission  of  the  p^e-eminent  and  peculiar  power  of 
the  apostles  to  a  set  of  ecclesiastical  successors:'''' — that  ^Hvhcn 
we  ask  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  ichence  they  derive  their 
favorite  doctrine,  thai  diocesan  bishops  succeed  the  apostles  in 
the  appropriate  powers  and  pre-eminence  of  their  apostolic 
character,  they  refer  us  to  no  passages  of  Scripture  asserting 
or  even  hinting  i/ :''''—  that — "z7  is  not  so  much  as  pretended  that 
a  passage  is  to  be  found,  which  gives  a  hint  of  this  kind:'''' 


The  plain  meaning  of  these  assertions  is,  that)  in'lhe  opiil- 
ion  of  Dr.  Miller,  and  the  editors  of  the  American  Presbyte- 
rian, Episcoimlians  not  only  cannot  find  any  countenance  in 
Scripture  for  their  doctrine  of  the  constitution  of  the  Chris, 
iian  ministry,  hut  they  do  not  even  make  pretentions  to  do  so. 
If  these  gentlemen  have  truth  on  their  side,  the  large  majority 
of  Protestant  divines  have  been  sadly  mistaken,  ©r  something 
v/orse;  and  the  Episcopal  Church  is  certainly  not  entitled  to 
the  ground  she  has  long  held  among  a  vast  multitude  of  the 
excellent  of  the  earth! 

And  yet,  as  long  ago  as  the  Rfformation,  amidst  hazards  on 
all  sides,  such  as  we,  of  this  age,  are  unable  adequately  to 
conceive,  ihe  English  Reformers,  with  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and 
Ridley  at  their  head;  rejecting,  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  every 
thing  in  religion  which  could  not  be  sanctioned  by  theicriiten 
vord  oyCoJ,  announced  and  persevered  in  their  adherence  to 
Episcopacy  as  the  primitive  and  apostolic  constitution  of  the 
church  of  Christ!  In  the  preface  to  their  Ordinal,  (or  forms 
of  ordination)  they  declared,  that,  "It  is  evident  to  all  men, 
diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that, 
from  the  apostles'  times,  there  have  been  these  orders  of  min- 
isters in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons.'''* — 
They  could,  in  some  of  the  most  solemn  acts  of  their  religion 
appeal  to  Almighty  God  to  witness,  that  by  his  "divine  Pro- 
vidence," and  "by  his  Holy  Spirit"  he  had  "appointed  divers 
orders  of  ministers  in  his  church," — that  he  ]vd^^  inspired 
his  apostles  to  choose  into  the  order  of  deacons,  the  first  mar- 
tyr St.  Stephen,  with  others,"  and  yet  not  believe — according 
to  Dr  Miller — that  they  derived  any  countenance  for  these 
facts  from  Scripture!  S  j  anxious  were  the  authors  of  these  ex- 
pressions, that  every  thing  connected  with  religion  should  be 
brought  to  the  test  of  Sciipture,  that  they  were  the  first  in  all 
the  world  to  cause  the  Bible  to  be  translated  into  their  own 
language,  and  placed  within  the  reach  of  all  who  could  read: 
and  yet  they  did  not  believe,  it  seems? — if  we  are  to  credit  Dr. 


Miller — that  the  stations  they  held  in  the  Church,  the  minis- 
trations they  performed,  and  the  principles  they  avowed  and 
practised,  received  any  countenance  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment! And  can  Dr.  Miller  induce  you,  Messrs.  Editors,  in 
these  days  of  light,  and  knowledge,  and  common  sense,  to  be- 
lieve such  a  wonderful  talc  as  this? 

And  now,  gentlemen,  to  make  a  long  story  short, — for  your 
patience  would  be  exhausted  long  before  1  could  complete  the 
mound  of  evidence  which  I  might  heap  up  in  this  case, — we 
vvill,  if  you  please,  take  it  for  granted,  that  Episcopalians  hrve, 
from  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  continued  to  believe,  that  the 
Episcopal  constitution  is  sanctioned  by  Scripture;  for  they  have 
continued  with  possibly  some  variations  of  opinion  among  in- 
dividuals, substantially  to  maintain  and  act  upon  these  same 
doctrines  of  the  Refannationon  this  subject;  for  they  have,  at 
least,  in  the  published  formularies  of  their  Ch'irch,  and  in  ev- 
ery case  of  ordination  to  the  ministry,  wliether  of  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon,  continued  to  make  the  same  appeals;  and 
have  moreover  constantly  declared  in  their  Ordinal,  in  the 
li.nguage  w^iich  the  martyrs  of  the  Reformation  themselves 
placed  there,  that  "no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be 
a  lawful  Bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  in  tliis  church,  or  suffered 
to  execute  any  of  its  functions,  except  lie  hath  had  Episcopal 
consecration,  or  ordination.*' 

But,  at  the  very  time  that  Dr.  Miller  made  his  singularly 
i;u!d  declaration,  that  when  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  are 
asked  whence  they  derive  their  favorite  doctrine,  "they  refer 
us  to  no  passages  of  Scripture  asserting,  or  even  hinting  it ;  but 
to  some  equivocal  suggestions  and  allusions  ofseveral  Fathers, 
who  wrote  within  the  tirst  four  or  five  hundred  years  after 
Christ,''  he  certainly  had  bef-re  him,  for  he  quotes  it  just  be- 
fore, a  little  work  by  Bishop  Onderdonk  of  Pennsylvania ; 
which  he  could  not  but  know,  is  ex'.ensively  approved  cf 
among  Episcopalians,  in  this  country;  with  the  very  title, 
Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture!    From  the  first  page  of  this 


10 

work,  I  quote  the  following  as  a  point  blank  contradiction  of 
Dr.  Miller's  assertion. 

"The  claim  of  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  institution,  and 
therefore  obligatory  on  the  Church,  rests  fundamentally  on  the 
one  question—  has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture?  If  it  has  not, 
it  is  not  necessarily  binding.  If  it  has,  the  next  and  only 
other  question  is — has  any  different  arrangement  of  the  sacred 
ministry  scriptural  authority?  If  there  be  any  such,  that 
also  has  divine  sanction,  and  must  stand  with  episcopacy.  Jf, 
however  none  such  can  be  found,  then  episcopacy  alone  has 
the  countenance  of  the  word  of  God.'" 

**Such  a  statement  of  the  essential  point  of  the  episcopal 
controversy  is  entirely  simple;  and  this  one  point  should  be 
kept  in  view  in  every  discussion  of  the  .subject;  no  argument 
is  worth  taking  into  account  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing 
on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scriptural  evidence  of  epis- 
copacy."* 


*  I  am  not  ignorant  that  this  work  of  Bp.  Onderdonk's  has  received  a 
professed  answer  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes  of  Philadelphia.  The  fol- 
lowing extract  from  the  New  York  Churchman  of  the  6th  instant,  will 
serve  to  show  in  what  light  this  answer  is  regarded  by  Episcopalians. 
"A  writer  in  the  Episcopal  Recorder  suggests  the  propriety  of  publish- 
ing the  tract  of  Bp.  Onderdonk  on  Episcopacy,  and  the  review  of  it  by 
Mr.  Barnes,  as  containing  the  best  discussion  of  the  Scriptural  argument 
for  Episcopacy.  It  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  controversy  has  been  con- 
ducted with  much  ability,  and  in  a  proper  spirit  by  both  parties,  and  we 
doubt  not  the  publication  proposed  would  essentially  promote  the  cause 
of  truth.  We  are  happy  to  say  that  the  whole  controversy  is  now  publish- 
ing by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Tract  Society  of  this  city.  (New  York) 
The  work  will  be  stereotyped,and  will  contain  the  original  tract  by  Bp.  O., 
-the  review  by  Mr.  Barnes,-Bp,  O's.  reply  to  the  review,  and  Mr.  B's. 
rejoinder,  with  the  conclusion  by  Bp.  O.  An  article  on  the  same  subject, 
from  the  Biblical  Repertory,  at  Princeton,  withBp.  O's.  reply,  will  also 
form  part  of  the  same  volume.  Thus  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  tested 
by  Scripture,  will  be  laid  fully  and  fairly  before  the  public.  Episcopa- 
lians are  entirely  and  universally  satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  Bp. 
O.  has  conducted  the  argument,     Presbyterians  too,  are  satisfied,  inas- 


11 

It  would  swell  these  strictures  to  a  very  inconvenient  length 
to  adduce  all  the  Scripture  testimony  which  Episcopalians 
are  accustomed,  openly  and  freely,  in  books  and  conversation, 
to  appeal  to  on  this  subject;  testimony  which  Dr.  Miller,  not- 
withstanding his  assertions,  has  read  and  heard  on  very  many 
occasions.  In  addition  to  the  following  brief  statement,  I  re- 
fer those  who  may  desire  a  full  acquaintance  with  it  to  Bp. 
Onderdonk's  work,  above  named. 

I  must  here  avail  myself,  however,  of  a  rule  which  Dr. 
Miller  has  himself  laid  down  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Let- 
ters on  the  Christian  Ministry,  p.  26-27,  on  this  subject. — 
Speaking  of  the  ministry,  he  says,  "It  is  proper  to  premise, 
that  whoever  expects  to  find  any  formal  or  explicit  declara- 
tions on  this  subject,  delivered  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  will 
be  disappointed. — "While  the  Scriptures  present  no  formal  or 
explicit  directions  on  this  subject,  we  find  in  them  a  mode  of 
expression,  and  a  number  of  facts,  from  which  we  may,  with- 
out difficulty,  ascertain  the  outlines  of  the  apostolic  plan  of 
church  order."  I  trust  this  will  be  a  sufficient  bar  in  my  fa- 
vor against  the  operation  of  his  assertion,  in  this  IVth  chapter 
now  before  us,  that  ^Hhe  Scripture  testimony'''*  of  his ''Episco- 
pal brother n,  is  in  no  instance,  direct  and  explicit,  hvJt  all 
indirect  and  remotely  inferential . — They  do  not  pretend  to 
quote  a  single  passage  of  Scripture  which  declares  in  so 
many  words,  or  any  thing  like  it,  in  favor  of  their  claim,  but 
their  whole  reliance,  in  regard  to  Scriptural  testimony,  is 
placed  on  facts  and  deductions  from  those  facts'! 
I  purpose  to  be  very  brief,  yet  as  many  persons  among  us 

much  as  Scripture  has  been  made  the  basis  of  the  controversy ;  and  they 
will  allow  that  they  could  not  have  trusted  their  cause  with  a  more  able 
and  accomplished  advocate  than  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  Episcopalians 
are  so  well  satisfied  vnththe  result,  that  they  have  published  the  contro- 
versy for  gratuitous  circulation  throughout  the  land.  Will  Presby- 
terians do  the  samel  or,  if  not,  will  they  accept  the  tract  for  gratuitous 
dit  tribution7  " 


12 

have  been  led  to  foim  very  strange  notions  of  the  views  of 
Episcopalians  on  this  subject,  I  think  it  necessary,  first  to 
state  the  specific  character  of  the  three  orders  in  the  minis 
try,  as  they  are  regarded  in  the  Episcopal  Church. — The 
Jirstj  or  superior  order,  were  entrusted  with  the  general  over- 
sight of  the  church,  and  with  the  power  of  ordaining,  or  ad- 
miiting  others  to  the  ministry.  The  second  order  derived 
their  authority  through  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  a- 
postles,  conjointly  with  that  of  the  presbytery,  and  were  au- 
thorized to  preach  the  gospel,  and  administer  the  ordinances. 
The  ildrd  were  general  assistants  in  the  service  of  the  church, 
occasionally  preaching,  and  baptising,  and  were  charged,  also, 
with  the  care  of  the  sick  and  helpless.  These  three  orders 
are  distinguished  in  Scripture,  not  only,  hy  the  nature  of  their 
duties,  but  also  by  their  peculiar  names.  The  first  order  is 
there  called  apostles,  the  second  by  the  names  of  bishops  and 
elders, — the  third  by  that  of  deacons.  Some  time  after  the 
death  of  the  original  twelve  apostles,  the  name  of  bishop, 
which  simply  means  overseer,  was  given  to  those  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  place  and  authority  of  the  apostles,  as  overseers 
of  the  whole;  and  the  second  order  has,  from  that  time,  been 
called  by  the  names  o^elders  or  presbyters.  This  circumstance 
should  be  remembered,  because  those  who  are  more  apt  to  be 
guided  by  names  than  things,  have  inferred,  with  Dr.  Miller, 
that  because  the  same  name  is  now  given  to  the  first  order, 
which  all  allow  was  oiiginally  given  to  the  second,  therefore 
there  was  no  such  order  as  the  first.  The  three  orders  are 
now  called  by  nearly  the  whole  Christian  world,  bishops, 
priests  or  presbyters,  and  deacons,  Nineteen-twentieths  of 
the  whole  Christian  world  are  Episcopalians. 

1 .  There  was  an  order  of  ministers  governing  the  church,  and 
ordaining  others  to  the  ministry.  It  is  plain  that  the  apostles, 
while  they  lived,  were  such  an  order;  and.  Dr.  Miller's  as- 
sertion to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  there  is  much  evi- 
dence in  the  Scriptures  that  they  associated  others  with  them 


13 

ill  the  same  station  and  work.  He  says,  indeed,  that,  ^'it  is 
manifest  that  ordination  was  not  confined  to  the  apostles,  ot- 
ficially  and  technically  so  called;  for  nothing  can  be  plainer 
than  that  Barnabas,  Timothy,  and  Titus,  who  were  not  apos- 
tles in  the  appropriated  sense,  were  invested  with  the  ordain- 
ing power,  and  actually  and  abundantly  exercised  it.  It  is 
equally  manifest  that  when  the  apostles  ceased  from  the 
Church,  they  left  no  successors  in  that  pre-eminent  and  pecu- 
liar office,  which  they  filled  during  their  lives."  Now  all  these 
points  may  he  equally  manifest  to  Dr.  Miller,  but  he  brings 
no  evidence  from  Scripture  to  make  them  manifest  to  others, 
nor,  indeed,  can  he.  What  are  the  marks  of  an  apostle,  in 
his  estimation?  What  does  he  mean  by  an  appropriated  sense 
to  this  term?  What  constituted  their  of^ce  so  pre-eminent  and 
peculiar  that  they  could  have  no  successors?  To  whom  does 
he  limit  the  apostleship?  "The  Apostles,"'  says  Bp.  On- 
derdonk,  "were  not  thus  distinguished  because  they  were  ap- 
pointed by  Christ  personally ;  for  some  are  named  'Apcstles' 
in  Scripture,  who  were  not  thus  appointed,  as  Matthias,  Bar- 
nabas, and  probably  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,*  all  or- 
dained by  merely  human  ordainers;  Silvanus  also  and  Tim- 
othy are  called  'Apostles  :'t  and,  besides  Andronicus  and 
Junia,  others  could  be  added  to  the  list.f    Nor  were  the  aoos- 


*  Acts  i.  26;  xiv.  4,  14,  Gal.  i.  19.  Compare  the  latter  with  Mark  vi, 
3,  and  John  vii,  5:  and  see  Hammond  on  St  James'  epistle,  and  Bish- 
op White  on  the  Catechism,  p.  431. 

t  See  1.  Thess.  ii.  6,  compared  with  i,  1.  Paul,  Silvanus,  (or  Silas,) 
and  Timothy,  are  aliincluded  aa  "Apostles."  In  verse  18,  Paul  speak* 
of  himself  individually,  not  probably  before.  It  is  not  unusual,  indeed, 
for  St.  Paul  to  use  the  plural  number  of  himself  only;  but  the  words  "A- 
poiitles,'"  and  "our  own  souls^'  (verse  8.)  being  inapplicable  to  the  sin- 
gular use  of  the  plural  number,  show  that  the  three  whose  names  are  at 
the  head  of  this  epistle,  are  here  spoken  of  jointly.  And  thus,  Silas  and 
Timothy  are,  with  Paul,  recognized,  in  this  passage  of  Scripture,  as  "a- 
postles." 

t  It  will  here  be  sufficient  to  remark,  that  in  2  Cor.  xi.  13,  andRer.  ii. 


14 

ties  thus  distinguished  because  they  had  seen  our  Lord  after 
his  resurrection;  for  "five  hundred  brethren"  saw  him.*  And, 
though  the  twelve  apostles  were  selected  as  special  witnesses 
of  the  resurrection,  yet  others  received  that  appellation  who 
were  not  thus  selected,  as  Timothy,  Silvanus,  Andronicus, 
Junia,  etc.  Nor  were  the  apostles  thus  distinguished  because 
of  their  power  of  working  miracles;  for  Stephen  and  Philip, 
who  were  both  deacons,  are  known  to  have  had  this  power.f 
It  follows,  therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,  that 
the  apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  elders  because  th«y 
were  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 

The  nature  of  the  office  which  the  apostles — comprising 
within  this  term  all  those  who  are  named  above — exercised, 
may  be  learnt  from  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
the  epistles  of  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  In  the  epistle  to 
Titus,  Paul,  in  solemnly  charging  Titus  how  to  behave  him- 
self in  the  church  of  God,  tells  him  "for  this  cause  left  1  thee 
in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are 
wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city;"  (i.  5.)  f.  e.  to  act 
as  governor  and  ordainer  of  the  church  in  Crete.  This 
plainly  sets  forth  the  character  and  duties  of  the  office.  They 
were  to  ordain  ministers,  and  govern  in  the  church.  This 
was  their  pre  eminent  and  peculiar  office.  In  no  part  of  the 
Scripture  are  such  duties  assigned  to  either  elders  or  deacons. 
In  the  only  place  which  will  at  all  admit  of  such  a  construc- 
tion, where  Paul  speaks  of  Timothy  being  ordained  "by  the 
laving  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  it  is  plain,  that,  as 
v.i  another  place  he  speaks  ondmself   as  the  ordainer  of  Tim- 


2,  "false  Apostles"  are  spoken  of.  These  could  not  have  been,  or  have 
pretended  to  be,  any  of  the  eleven,  or  of  the  five  next  above  mentioned, 
or  Paul.  Their  assuming  therefore  the  title  of  'Apostles'  showa  that 
there  were  enough  others  who  had  this  title  to  make  their  pretended  claim 
to  it  plausible.  And  I  hose  others  must  have  been  ordained,  not  by  Christ, 
hut  by  vien  who  had  his  commission. — Calvin  allows  Andronicus  and 
.fnnia  (Rom.  xvi.  7.)  to  have  been  Apostles,  Instit.  b.  IV.  c.  iii.  sect.  5. 
•♦  1.  Cor.  XV,  6.  t  Acts  vi.  8;  viii.  6. 


15 

othvj  he  can  only  mean  a  concurrent  act  on  their  part.  (2d 
Tim.  r.  6. — 1  Tim.  iv.  14.)  Surely  then,  Episcopalians  Aar« 
some  Scriptural  ground  for  believing  that  the  apostles  did 
have  ecclesiastical  successors. 

2.  There  was  also  an  order  of  ministers  who  did  not  exer- 
cise government  over  others,  or  ordain;  but  who  exercised,  in 
common  with  the  apostolic  order,  the  general  duties  of  the 
ministry,  viz:  preaching  the  gospel,  and  administering  the  sa- 
craments; and  who.as occasion  required,  were  placed  in  charge 
of  particular  congregations.  Of  this  class,  it  would  seem, 
were  "the  other  seventy,"  sent  forth  by  our  Lord,  distinctly 
from  "the  twelve" — the  elders  ordained  by  the  apostles— those 
ordained  by  Titu?,  agreeably  to  the  instructions  given  himbv 
St.  Paul — those  bishops,  or  overseers  of  thefoch,  who  were 
sent  for  by  Paul  from  Ephesus  to  Miletus — those  addressed 
by  Peter,  in  his  first  epistle — those  who  were  ordained 
by  Timothy  according  to  the  directions  given  him  in  the 
first  epistle  of  Paul  to  him — those  whom  Paul  associated  with 
all  the  saints,  and  the  deacons  at  Philippi,  in  his  epistle  to  the 
church  in  that  city;  and  those  alluded  to  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  in  the  expressions,  "Apostles  and  Elders"'' — ''Apos- 
tles and  Elders,  and  brethren." — The  apostles  were  commis- 
sioned by  our  Lard  to  gather,  and  establish  his  church,  yet  no 
0!:e  pretends  that  such  a  commission  was  given  io  the  seventy ; 
and  it  is  apparent  by  the  manner  in  which  the  election  of 
Matthias,  (who,  in  all  probability  was  one  of  them,  for  he 
"had  companied  with"  the  apostles  "all  the  time  the  Lord  Je- 
sus went  in  and  out  among  them,")  into  the  place  of  Judas 
was  conducted,  that  they  were  not  considered  as  belonging  to 
the  same  class  with  the  apostles;  else,  why  was  an  election, 
with  such  solemn  forms  required?  The  epistles  to  Timotliy 
and  Titu?,  moreover  show,  that  they  were  vested  with  authori- 
ty over  the  elders,  (or  bishops)  or,  as  we  now  call  them  pres- 
byters, of  the  churches  in  Ephesus  and  Crete.  They  were 
empowered  to  check  errors  in  doctrine — to  rebuke  the  disobe- 


16 

dient  elders — to  give  honor  to  those  who   should  deserve  it 
and  were   not  to  admit  any  suddenly  to  the   ministry.     Of 
course,  the  elders  were  inferior  to  them  in  office  and  authority. 
There  is  a  very  plain  distinction  between  these  two  classes  of 
men. 

3.  There  was  also  a  third  order  in  the  ministry,  who  were 
called  deacons.  That  there  was  such  an  order  in  the  church 
at  Jerusalem — that  they  were  chosen  by  the  disciples  generaV 
ly,  and  were  set  apart  for  their  office  by  the  imposition  of  th« 
hands  of  the  apostles,  with  solemn  prayer,  is  plain.  It  does 
not  appear,  as  some  think,  that  the  deacons  were  limited  to 
the  duties  which  originally  caused  their  separation — taking 
care  of  the  offerings  at  the  altar  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor, — on 
the  contrary,  it  is  certain,  that  Stephen,  who  was  one  of  the 
first  seven  deacons,  was  an  open^nd  xealous  preacher  of  the 
gospel,  and  of  Philip  we  are  not  only  told  that  he  was  a 
preacher,  but  that  he  baptized  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  and  also 
men  and  women  in  Samaria.  The  apostles  however  approved 
of  Philips  ministry,  for  they  sent  Peter  and  John  to  confirm 
those  whom  he  had  baptized ;  and  the  descent  o f the  Holy  Ghost 
jpon  them,  was  a  still  higher  confirmation  of  his  ministry.  He 
is  elsewhere  called  an  Evangelist ;  a  term  probably  of  nearly 
the  same  meaning  with  missionary.  Paul  in  his  epistles  to 
Timothy,  speaks  twice  of  the  office  of  a  deacon  as  of  one  of 
permanent  necessity  in  the  christian  church. 

This  is  only  a  brief  summary  of  what  might  be  said  upon 
this  subject.  Enough,  however,  it  is  believed  has  been  alleged 
to  show  what  credence  should  be  given  to  Dr.  Miller's  asser- 
tion that  the  New  Testament  does  not  afford  the  least  coun- 
tenance to  the  claims  of  Episcopalians. 

Dr.  Miller  quotes  a  passage  from  Dr.  Isaac  Barrow,  for  the 
purpose  of  showing,  that  Dr.  Barrow  did  not  consider  the  a- 
postles  as  having  any  regular  successors.  He  supposes  that 
this  opinion  is  to  have  great  weight  against  Episcopacy,  be- 
cause Dr.  B.  was,  as  he  calls  him,  a   prclatist.     I  am  so  un- 


17 

fortunate  as  not  to  perceive  any  result  of  this  kind,  though  1 
must  certainly  admit  Dr.  B.  to  have  been  a  man  of  great  abi- 
lity, and  learning,  and  of  good  judgment  on  many  points.  Dr. 
Miller  has  been  not  a  little  distinguished  for  citing  writers  in 
this  way  to  sustain  his  opinions  against  the  Episcopal  church, 
and  sometimes  with  the  most  unfortunate  results  to  himself, 
and  his  cause.*  Your  assault  upon  your  "Episcopal  breth- 
ren," may  have  the  full  benefit  of  all  testimony  of  this  nature. 
It  may  be  turned  against  your  own  cause  with  powerful 
force,  and  to  a  remarkable  extent,  as  1  have  the  means  to 
show.  To  make  no  reference  at  present,  to  writers  of  past 
ages,  of  your  own  denomination,  what  opinion  should  I  be 
led  to  entertain  of  the  present  state  of  ihe  Presbyterian 
church,  in  this  country,  by  a  resort  to  testimony  of  this  char- 
acter. With  a  class  of  divines  on  one  side  claiming  the  ex- 
clusive validity  of  presbyterian  ordination — (he  jure  divinoot 
presbytery,  and  insisting  upon  unscrupulous  submission  to 
every  line  of  the   Confession  of  Faithj — and  another   class 


*  Dr.  M.  seems  to  have  intended  that  his  readers  should  infer  that  Dr. 
Barrow  did  not  himself  believe  in  the  apostolic  origin  of  Episcopacy. 
Let  the  following  quotations  from  the  same  work  bear  witness  with  what 
justice  such  an  opinion  can  be  formed.  "Of  the  distinction  between 
bishops  and  the  inferior  clergy,  there  was  never  in  ancient  times  made 
any  question,  nor  did  it  seem  disputable  in  the  church,  except  to  one 
malcontent,  Aerius: — it  standeth  upon  very  firm  and  clear  grounds,  upon 
the  reason  of  the  case,  vpon  the  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture,  upon  gen- 
eral tradition,  and  unquestionable  monuments  of  antiquity,  upon  tha 
common  judgment  and  practice  of  the  greatest  saints,  persons  most  re- 
nowned for  wisdom  and  piety  in  the  church. — The  Holy  Scripture  doth 
plainly  enough  countenance  this  distinction;  for  therein  we  have  repre- 
aented  one  angel  presiding  over  several  presbyters;  therein  we  find  epi^ 
copal  ordination  and  jurisdiction  exercised;  vee  have  one  bishop  consti- 
tuting presbyters  in  divers  cities  of  his  diocese.'*  etc. 

t  The  following  extracts  will  explain  this  statement.  Dr.  M'Leod 
of  New  York,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  29,  says,  "A  peraon 
who  is  not  ordained  to  office  by  a  presbytery,  has  no  right  to  be  received 
as  a  minister  of  Christ:  His  administration  of  ordinances  is  invalid:     ]\o 

B  2 


18 

pouring  deiision,  without  qualification  or  compassion,  upon  ail 
such  pretensions,  and  declaring  the  whole  system  to  be  wax- 
ing old,  and  ready  to  perish,*  and  yet  another  class— but  I 
forbear.  I  have  no  wish  to  meddle  with  the  unhappy  differ- 
ence!?, which  are  well  known  to  exist  to  a  very  serious  extent 
in  the  Church  of  which  Dr.  Miller,  and  the  editors  of  the 
American  Preshyterian  are  members,  but  only  to  intimate  the 
necessity  of  caution,  in  the  use  of  such  authorities,  as  Dr.  JVI. 
hcis  here  called  to  his  aid. 

IJe  has  however,  chosen  to  rely  on  Dr.  Barrow's  ^^judg- 
merd''''  m  this  matter,  while,  he  objects  to  the  "judgment"  of 
Theodoret,  a  Christian  Father  who  lived  in  the  5th  century, 
snd  whose  testimony  is  directly  opposed  to  that  of  Dr.  B.! 
Theocoret,  according  to  Dr.  Miller's  quotation,  says,  "The 
same  persons  were  anciently  called  bishops  and  presbyters; 
and  those  whom  w^e  now  call  bishops,  were  then  called  a- 
postles.  But  in  process  of  time,  the  title  of  apostle  was  op- 
propriated  to  those,  who  were  called  apostles  in  the  strict 
sense,  and  the  rest,  who  had,  formerly,  the  name  of  apostles, 

divine  blessing  is  promised  upon  his  labors:  It  is  rebellion  against  the 
Head  of  the  church  to  support  him  in  his  pretensions:  Christ  has  excluded 
him  in  his  Providence  from  admission  through  the  ordinary  door;  and  if 
he  has  no  evidence  of  miraculous  pov\ersto  testify  his  extraordinary  mis- 
sion, he  is  an  impostor."  Dr.  Green  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  Christian 
Advocate  for  March,  1828,  says,  "An  entire  parity  and  equality  of  rank 
and  office,  among  those  who  are  permanently  to  preach  the  gospel,  and 
dispense  all  its  ordinances,  [  in  other  woxdiS, 'preshyteriardsin']  is  a  divine 
appointment;  and,  in  reference  to  the  gospel  ministry,  the  only  divine 
appointment,  which  is  apparent  in  the  sacred  record."  And  even  Dr. 
iMiUer  himself,  in  the  first  edition  of  liis  Letters  on  the  Ministry,  p. 
347,  Siiys,  "It  is  only  so  far  as  any  succession  flows  through  the  line  of 
presbyters,  that  it  is  either  regular  or  valid."  It  would  be  exceedingly 
difficult  to  say,  where  higher  toned  or  more  exclusive  opinions  on  this 
subject  are  to  be  found. — See  also  Dr.  Duncan's  account  of  the  canse» 
of  his  expulsion  from  the  Presbyterian  church. 

*Seethe  Evangelist  and  other  current  religious  papers  of  the  Presby- 
terian church. 


19 

were  styled  bieliop?."  Now/u  must  be  adinited,  that  Episco- 
palians do,  frequently,  quote  this  lesiimony  of  Theodoref  ; 
but  it  is  for  the  obvious  reason,  that  it  is  the  plain,  honest, 
straight  forward  statement  of  a  man,  who  appears  to  have  had 
no  perForral  object  to  serve;  and  who  is  speaking,  incidentally, 
of  a  faci^  considered  as  established  and  well  known  in  his 
day.  And  why  should  his  testimony  not  be  received?  Dr. 
31.  says,  "It  is  not  the  testimony  of  Scripture." — No,  indeed, 
nor  does  it  profess  to  be.  It  is  only  to  a  fact  which  occurred 
after  the  books  of  Scripture  were  written.  The  men  whom 
he  refers  to,  are  called,  and  designated  in  the  Scripture,  as  a- 
posiles;  and  for  that  fact  we  have, — as  above  shown, — Scrip- 
ture testimony.  But  Dr.  M.  says,  "It  is  the  dream  of  a  wri- 
ter  four  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age,  in  whose  time  the 
Church  had  become  very  corrupt,  etc."  Well,  suppose  it 
should  be  said  in  reply,  that  the  ^^judgment''''  of  Dr.  Barrow, 
on  this  subject,  is  the  dream  of  a  writer  more  than  a  thovsand 
years  later  still;  and  at  a  period,  when  Dr.  M.  must  allow 
there  was  much  corruption  in  the  Christian  churches  in  many 
parts  of  the  earth.  Surely,  Theodoret's  testimony  to  a  histor- 
ical fact  four  hundred  years  after  it  occurred,  is  quite  as  much 
to  be  relied  o»,  as  that  of  Dr.  Barrow,  who  lived  sixteen  hun- 
dred years  after  it  occurred,  and  who  could  have  had  no  bet- 
ter testimony  to  it  than  we  have  !* 

A  second  reason  assigned  by  Dr.  Miller,  why  Theodoret's 
testimony,  in  this  matter,  is  not  to  be  received,  is  that,  ^-no 
one  doubts  that  in  Theodoret's  time,  prelacy,'' — by  which  he 
mean?,  Episcopacy-"had  obtained  a  complete  establishment." 
Indeed!  Episcopalians  believe  that  it  was  not  only  establish- 
ed then,  but  even  in  the  apostles'  days.  One  would  suppose 
that  impartial  men  would  consider  this  fact  a  strong  confirma- 


*  In  relation  to  the  fact  to  which  Theodoret  testifies,  that  bishops  were 
originally  termed  apostles,  having  succeeded  to  that  office,  Dr.  Miller 
knows  that  Episcopalians  are  also  in  the  habit  of  quoting  Hilary  wh© 
liv«d  about  376,  and  who  testifies  to  the  same  fact. 


so 


tion  of  his  testimony  instead  of  invalidating  it.  It  is  a  direct 
admission  that  Theodoret's  testimony  was  consistent  with  the 
universal  belief  of  the  Christian  church  in  his  day. 

If  Dr.  Miller  fails  of  convincing  his  readers,  it  will  net  b« 
for  want  of  bold  assertions — bold,  beyond  those  of  any  other 
polemic  with  whom  1  am  acquainted — bold  beyond  any  war- 
rant of  testimony,  or  the  previously  declaied  opinions  of  any 
other  assailant  of  Episcopacy.  He  says,  "It  is  very  certain 
that  the  Fathers  who  flourished  nearest  the  apostolic  age, gen- 
erally represent  presbyters  and  not  prelates  (bishops)  as  the 
successors  of  apostles,"  and  he  actually  has  the  rashness  to 
quote  Ignatius, — that  identical  father,  whose  writings  aie 
genuine,  or  rot  genuine — worthy,  or  not  worthy  of  confidence, 
according  as  he  may  be  made  to  serve  the  purpose  to  which 
Dr.  Miller  chooses  to  apply  him!  How  little  he  is  able  to 
make  use  of  him  in  assailing  Episcopacy,  let  the  following 
exhibition  of  the  manner  in  whicli  his  quotations  are  made, 
and  of  Ignatius'  own  statements  show. 


Dr.  Miller  quotes  him  as 
saying 

The  presbyters  succeed  in 
the  place  of  the  bench  of  the 
apostles. 


The  passage  truly  copied  is 


I  exhort  you,  that  ye  study- 
to  do  all  things  in  a  divine 
concord :  your  bishops  in  the 
place  of  God;  your  presbyteis 
in  the  place  of  the  council 
of  the  apostles;  and  your  dea- 
cons most  dear  to  me  being 
entrusted  with  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  Christ. — Ep.  to  Mag 
nesians. 
AGAIN. 


In  like  manner  let  all  rev- 
erence the  presbyters  as  the 
Sanhedrim  of  God,  and  col- 
lege of  the  apostles. 


In  like  manner  let  all  rev- 
erence the  deacons  as  Jesvis 
Christ;  and  the  bishop  as  tin; 
Father,  and  the  presbyters  as 
the  Sanhedrim  of  God,  and 
college  of  the  apostles;  with 
out  these  there  is  no  Church. 
—  Ev .  to  Trallians. 


21 


AGAIN 

Ee  subject  to  your  presby- 
ters as  to  the  apostles  of  Je- 
sus Christ  our  hope. 


It  is  therefore  necessary, 
that  as  ye  do,  so  without  your 
bishop  you  should  do  nothinn;: 
also  be  ye  subject  to  your  pres- 
byters, as  the  apostles  of  Je- 
sus Christ  our  hope,  in  whom 
if  we  walk,  we  shall  be  found 
in  him.  The  deacons,  also, 
as  being  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ,  &LC.~Ep.to  Trallians. 
AGAIN. 


Follow  the   presbyters   as 
the  apostles. 


See  that  ye  all  follow  your 
bishop  as  Jesus  Christ  the 
Father;  and  the  presbyters  as 
the  apostles. — Ep.  to  Smyr- 
neans. 

The  feeblest  capacity  can  judge  of  the  integrity  of  these 
quotations  of  Dr.  Miller.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  his  ob- 
ject is  to  show  reasons  for  rejecting  episcopacy;  or,  as  he  calls 
it,  prelacy — rejecting  the  belief  that  three  orders,  (bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons,)  were  established  in  the  Christian  min- 
istry by  the  apostles.  Was  there  ever  a  more  unfaithful  ap- 
plication of  any  man's  written  opinions?  Dr.  M.  omits  the 
facts  to  which  Ignatius  actually  does  testify,  and  changes  a 
high  wrought,  fanciful,  and  unreasonable  comparison,  which 
the  unbridled  zeal  of  Ignatius  led  him  to  make,  into  an  alle- 
gation of /a^^^s;  of  5WcA  facts  too,  as  stand  diametrically  op- 
posed to  Ignatius'  own  testimony!  What  too,  shall  we  think 
of  Dr.  31.,  when  we  find  him  making  Ignatius  speak  a  lan- 
guage directly  opposite  to  Dr.  Barrow,  whom  he  had  quoted 
above:  and  yet  seeking  to  make  them  Loth  wei^h  against 
Episcopacy! 


He  makes  Ignatius  say 

The  presbyters  succeed  in 
the  place  of  the  apostles. 


But  he  quotes  Dr.  Barrow 
as  saying 

The  apostolical  office,  as 
such,  was  personal  and  tem- 
porary; and  therefore,  accord- 


22 

ing  to  its  nature  and  design, 
not  successive,  not  communi- 
cable to  others,  in  perpetual 
descendance  from  them. 
Dr.  Miller  makes  no  quotation  from  IrencBUS,  but  contents 
himself  with  saying,  in  his  usual  bold  manner,  that  '^itis  no- 
torious that  Irenoeus  repeatedly  speaks  of  presbyters  as  being 
the  successors  of  the  apostles."  But  in  order  to  make  out  this 
assertion,  he  must  quote  from  Ireneeus  after  the  same  manner 
which  he  has  used  with  Ignatius,  that  is,  unfairly  and  untruly. 
!t  is  enough  to  say,  in  reply,  that  Irengeus  bears  strong  testi. 
mony  to  Episcopacy,  for  writers  on  your  own  side,  who  deny 
the  apostolic  origin  of  episcopacy,  generally  and  freely  admit, 
that  Episcopacy  was  in  his  time  fully  established;  and  as  Dr. 
Miller  thinks  that  this  circumstance  must  have  influenced  the 
testimony  of  Theodoret,  you  cannot  but  allow  it  to  have  in 
this  case,  the  weight  which  you  both  claim  for  it  in  the  oth- 
er. Irenaeus,  then,  by  your  own  rules  is  to  be  set  down  as 
an  unquestioned  witness  on  the  side  of  Episcopacy.  Even 
Dr.  M.  is  compelled  to  admit,  that  Irenseus  "represents  bish- 
ops as  the  successors  of  the  apostles,'  though  he  would  make 
us  believe,  ii  we  rest  upon  his  assertion,  that  these  bishops 
were  presbyters,* 


♦"Between  Ircnaeus  and  St.  John,"  says  the  learned  Mr.  Faber,  "there 
exists  only  the  single  link  of  Polycarp.  Irenoeus  was  the  scholar  of  Po- 
ly carp;  and  Poly  carp  was  the  disciple  of  St.  John." 

"Hence,  I  apprehend,  Irenoens  may  be  viewed  as  an  unexceptionable 
witness,  not  only  of  facts  which  occurred  in  his  own  immediate  time,  but 
also  of  any  inseparably  connected  facts  (if  such  there  be)  which  are  al- 
leged to  have  taken  place  in  the  time  of  the  apostles." 

"Now  the  fact,  which  Irenaeus  mentions  as  existing  in  his  own  time, 
is  the  universal  establhhmcnt  of  the  episcopate.''' 

"Respecting  this  naked  fact,  I  perceive  not  how  he  could  have  been 
mistaken.  We  all  know  without  a  possibility  of  error,  that  episcopacy  is 
at  this  present  moment  established  in  England.  The  fact  presents  itself  to 
our  very  eyes:  and  we  are  sure  that  we  cannot  be  deceived.  In  a  similar 
manner,    Irenseus   could  not  but   have  known  with  absolute  certainty* 


23 

Even  supposing  Dr.  Miller''s  quotations  from  Augustine  to 
be  true,-which,  from  what  has  been  shown  above,  may  reason- 
ably be  doubted,  andl  have  not  at'present  the  means,  if  it  were 


what  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  universally  prevailed  at  the  time  when 
he  himself  fljiirished.  This  form,  vouching  for  a  mere  cognizable  fact, 
he  declares  to  have  been  the  episcopal." 

"On  the  authority,  then,  of  Irenseus,  we  may  be  quite  certain  respect- 
ing the  naked  /acf,  that  in  his  days  the  episcopate  was  universally  estab- 
lished: and  for  this  early /acf  (for  the  personal  testimony  of  Irenseus  runs 
back  to  within  forty  years  of  the  death  of  St.  John)  we  are  naturally  led 
to  ask,  whence  that  univerisally-established  polity  could  have  originated?" 

"The  question  is  fully  answered  by  the  same  Irenacus  after  a  manner, 
which,  I  think,  evinces  the  moral  impossibility  of  error.-' 

"He  assures  us,  that  in  every  church  there  had  been  a  regular  succes- 
sion of  bishops  from  the  time  of  the  apostles:  and  he  himself,  as  we  have 
observed,  was  separated  from  St.  John  only  by  the  single  intervening  link 
of  Polycarp.  To  enumerate  the  successions  of  the  churches,  he  remarks, 
would  occupy  too  much  space  and  time:  he  confines  himself,  therefore,  as 
a  siugle  specimen  of  the  whole,  to  the  succession  of  the  Roman  church. 
On  this  topic  he  is  very  precise  and  particular." 

"The  Roman  church  itself,  he  tells  us,  was  founded  by  the  two  most 
glorious  apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  These  inspired  ministers  of  God, 
having  thus  jointly  founded  that  church,  jointly  delivered  the  episcopate 
of  it  to  its  first  bishop  Linus,  who  is  mentioned  by  Paul  in  his  second 
Epistle  to  Timothy.*  Linus  was  succeeded  by  Anacletus:  and,  after 
him,  in  the  third  degree  from  the  apostles,  Clement  received  the  episco- 
pate; which  Clement,  as  Irenseus  observes,  saw,  and  heard,  and  confer^ 
red  with  the  apostles  themselves.f  Clement  was  followed  by  Euaristus; 
Euaristus,  by  Alexander;  x\lexander,  by  SLstus;  Sixtus  by  Telesphorus; 
Telesphorus,  by  Hygi^ius;  Hyginus,  by  Pius;  Pius,  by  Anicetus;  Anice- 
tu3,  by  Soter;  and  Soter,  by  Eleutherius:  who  thus,  as  Irenaeus  remarks, 
held,  at  the  precise  time  when  he  was  writing  the  sentence,  the  Roman 
Episcopate  in  the  twelfth  degree  from  the  apostles." 

"To  this  succession  he  incidently  subjoins  the  origination  of  the  episco- 
pate in  the  church  of  Smyrna." 

"At  Rom.e,  as  we  have  seen,  he  vouches  for  the  fact,  that  the  episco- 
pate of  that  city  emanated  from  the  two  apostles  Peter  and  Paul:  at 
Smyrna,  he  vouches  for  the  fact,  that  the  episcopate  of  that  city  eman- 


*2.  Tim    iy.  £1.  fSe«  Philip.  > 


24 

worth  the  trouble,  to  verify  it, — Episcopalians  would  have 
no  difficulty  iir  assenting  to  it.  1  presume  no  one  of  them 
doubts,  that,  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  apostles,  as 
inspired  men,  gifted  with  plenary  power  to  regulate  the 
Church,  their  office  was  above  that  of  any  bishop  It  is  only  the 
permanent  and  necessary  duties  of  their  office,  which  Episco- 
palians believe  to  have  descended  to  bishops.  We  agree  with 
Dr.  BI.  as  to  what  those  duties  are.  The  question  between 
us  is,  whether  they  were  succeeded  in  those  duties  by  bishops, 
or  by  presbyters. 

Neither  Dr.  Miller,  nor  the  editors  of  the  American  Pres- 
byterian, seem  to  be  aware  of  the  real  character  of  the  asser- 
tion which  they  make,  that  "any  other  view  of  this  subject" 
than  they  have  chosen  to  give,  "is  an  imposition  on  popular 
credulity ."^^  Nothing  is  easier  than  to  substitute  railing  for 
argument;  and  suitable  epithets,  and  phrases,  are  always 
ready  in  uncharitable  minds.   Dr.  Miller,  in  all  his  controver- 


ated  from  the  apostle  John.  He  himself,  was  the  scholar  of  Polycarp, 
and  Polycarp  had  not  only  been  specially  the  disciple  of  John,  but  in  his 
early  youth  he  had  received  instructions  also  from  the  other  apostles. — 
By  the  apostle  John,  Polycarp  was  appointed  bishop  of  Smyrna:  and  h« 
presided  in  that  see  for  the  space  of  half  a  century,  untU  he  closed  his 
career  by  martyrdom.  Whatever  he  had  learned  from  the  apostles,  this 
venerable  man,  according  to  Irenteus,  delivered  to  the  church:  and  the 
same  testimony  was  borne,  by  all  the  churches  of  Asia,  and  by  those 
who  had  succeeded  Polycarp,  down  to  the  time  when  Irenseus  himself 
was  engaged  in  writing  his  work  against  heresies."* 

"Thus  we  find,  that  the  closely  connected /ad,  for  which  Irenseus 
vouches  in  addition  to  the  fact,  which  he  beheld  with  his  own  persona] 
eyes,  is  the  appointment  of  the  first  bishops  by  the  apostles  themselves: 
nor,  when  we  consider  the  circumstances  under  which  he  was  placed, 
himself  a  bishop,  the  successor  of  the  holy  nonagenarian  Pothinus,  him- 
self the  disciple  of  the  martyr  Polycarp,  himself  in  point  of  actual  knowl- 
edge reaching  within  forty  years  of  the  death  of  St.  John,  is  it  easry  to 
conceive,  how  he  could  have  been  mistaken  m  the  specification  of  a  fact 
which  must  at  that  time  have  been  a  matter  of  public  and  univeraal  no- 
toriety."— Fader's  Difficulties  of  Romanism. 
*  Iren.  adv.  HiEr.  lib.  iii.  c.  3. 


25 

sies,  and  they  have  not  been  few,  nor  far  between,  has  been 
not  a  little  distinguishedin  this  way.  If  his  feelings  towards 
the  Episcopal  church  are  such  that  he  must  vent  them  in  thw 
mode,  those  who  voluntarily  republish  and  circulate  his  un- 
charitable denunciations,  must  be  content  to  share  with  him, 
the  odium.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show,  how  far  Dr.  Mil- 
ler has  a  right  to  charge  Episcopalians  with  imposing  on 
popular  credulity. 

It  is  not  a  little  singular,  that,  while  Dr.  Miller's  opinions 
in  regard  to  the  competency  of  the  early  Christian  writers, 
commonly  called  the  Fathers,  have  varied  so  much;  and  while 
you,  Messrs  Editors,  also  allow  him  to  speak  of  them  so  slight- 
ly, as  witnesses  of  facts  in  the  early  history  of  the  Church, 
you  should  in  the  very  next  column  of  your  paper  of  May  21st, 
quote  many  of  these  same  Fatheis,  as  competent,  nay,  un- 
questioned witnesses  in  behalf  of  Infant  baptism !  It  is  a  strik- 
ing example  of  the  manner  in  which  men's  views  will  preju- 
dice them  in  regard  to  matters  of  fact.  Many  respectable 
writers  in  favor  of  Episcopacy,  have  expressed  a  willingness 
to  let  Episcopacy  abide  by  the  testimony  commonly  adduced 
in  favor  of  Infant  baptism,  and  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and 
the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  The  same  process 
of  reasoning,  which  is  used  to  sustain  these  points,  will 
also  amply  sustain  Episcopacy.  As  an  exemplification  of 
this,  let  Dr.  Woods'  able  work  on  Infant  Baptism  be  taken. 
If  Episcopacy,  and  the  necessary  corresponding  words,  be 
substituted,  in  his  first  chapter  for  Infant  baptism,  and  its  cor- 
responding terms,  I  believe  Episcopalians  generally  would  be 
quite  content  with  it,  as  a  statement  of  their  views,  and  of  the 
testimony  for  sustaining  them. 

A  large  proportion  of  your  extracts  from  Dr.  Miller,  con- 
sist of  simple,  and  wholly  unsupported,  assertions;  the  least 
laborious  mode  in  the  world  for  accomplishing  his  object  a- 
mong  the  credulous,  and  that  enormous  class  of  people,  who, 


26 

content  to  take  any  tiling  and  every  thing  upon  trust,  may  be 
described  in  the  significant  words,  deceiving  and  being  de- 
ceived !  There  is  an  exemplification  of  this  remark,  in  the 
assertion  of  Dr.  M.  that  the  whole  argument  for  the  superior- 
ity of  bishops  as  successors  of  the  apostles, "has  been  wholly 
abandoned  by  a  number  of  the  most  distinguished  divines  of 
the  church  of  England."  Dr.  M.  well  knows  that  he  cannot 
sustain  this  assertion  by  adequate  proof;  but  it  was  easily 
made — could  not  be  refuted,  but  by  an  examination  of  the 
writings  of  all  the  divines  of  that  church,  who  have  written 
on  the  subject;  a  labor  which  no  one  would  undertake — and 
yet,  it  would  certainly  be  believed  by  some,  for  no  falsehood 
is  so  gross  that  none  can  be  found  to  swallow  it.  These  most 
distinguished  divines,  if  he  really  had  in  view  any  divines 
whatever,  will  be  found  to  derive  all  their  distinction,  most 
probably,  from  his  notice  of  them.  "That  was  excellently 
observed,  say  I,  when  I  read  a  passpge  in  an  author,  whose 
opinion  agrees  with  mine;  when  we  differ,  then  I  pronounce 
him  mistaken.  And  this,"  as  was  said  in  another  case,  "is 
undoubtedly  the  philosophy  of  the  matter." 

We  now  come  to  a  very  remarkable  change  in  Dr.  Miller's 
course  of  argument.  Before,  Dr.  M.  could  say,  "when  we 
ask  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  whence  they  derive  their 
favorite  doctrine  that  diocesan  bishops  succeeded  the  apos- 
tles, they  refer  us  to  no  passage  of  Scripture  asserting  or  even 
hinting  it."  Noiv,  however,  he  seriously  sets  about  replying  to 
^^  arguments  from  Scripture  commonly  urged  by  our  Episcopal 
brethren'^!  What  is  to  bethought  of  the  candor  or  prudence  of 
such  an  opponent?  Were  he  sure  of  the  justice  of  his  cause 
— had  he  no  suspicion  of  the  defects  of  his  own  argument, — 
would  he  resort  to  such  means,  and  lay  himself  open  to  such 
imputations  as  are  here  implied?  Dr.  M.  well  knows  that  his 
arguments,  even  as  stated  by  himself,  have  aZZ  been  answered 
many  a  time.  But  assertions  may  be  repeated,  blindly  re- 
peated, where  arguments  cannot  be  adduced;  and  he  seems 


27 

to  care  but  little  what  cross  purposes  even  his  own  assertions 
may  be  made  to  play ! 

Dr.  M.  states  that  Episcopalians  commonly  urge  "that 
Timothy  was  evidently,  in  fact,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and 
Titus  of  Crete;  and  that  this  furnishes  a  plain  example  of  an 
order  of  ministers  superior  to  common  pastors."  Although 
he  chooses  to  assert  that  "there  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  of 
this  in  the  New  Testament,"  yet  I  venture  to  declare  that  it 
is  as  well  attested  as  any  similar  fact  in  history!  How  in- 
deed, can  any  one  who  reads  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Ti- 
tus, doubt  it?  Is  it  not  evident  that  both  these  men  were 
left  with  delegated  apostolic  power,  in  the  respective  dis- 
tricts assigned  them?  Were  they  not  to  govern  the  church, 
and  admit  men  to  the  ministry,  taking  care  that  improper 
persons  did  not  impose  on  them?  What  need  of  admitting 
others  to  the  ministry,  if  they  themselves  were  only  with  a 
pastoral  and  not  a  diocesan  charge — supposing,  as  this  argu- 
ment does,  that  the  charge  of  a  single  church  only  was  con- 
fided to  them?  Or  why  were  they  to  have  power  to  rebuke, 
—  one  of  the  last  and  highest  acts  of  government — to  rebuke 
an  elder,  when  not  more  than  one  or  two  elders  could,  neces* 
sarily,  be  connected  with  them;  and  even  then  must  be  equal 
or  colleagued  with  them?  To  rule^  rebuke, and  ordain,  were' 
undeniably  acts  of  authority, — can  any  instance  be  pointed 
out,  in  Scriptuie,  where  such  authority  was  given  to  any  of 
those  termed  elders?  Did  St.  Paul  charge  those,  whom  he 
called  from  Ephesus  to  Miletus,  with  authority  to  these  acts, 
as  he  did,  solemnly  and  urgently ,  Timothy  and  Titus?  Now, 
it  is  of  little  consequence,  whatever' Dr.- M.  finds  it  convenient 
to  think  about  it,  whether  either  of  these  men  had  3.  fixed  dio- 
cesan charge  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  or  not?  Episcopalians  gen- 
erally do  not  claim  that  they  had.  Neither  is  it  of  any  con- 
sequence to  this  question,  whether  they  "ever  performed  the 
work  of  ordination  alone  or  not."  Modern  bishops  do  not 
ordain  presbyters,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  priesthood, 


28 

or  presbytery.  The  question  is,  simply,  a  question  of  fad. 
Were  Timothy  and  Titus  vested  with  power  to  perform  any 
acts  which  imply  autfiority,  and  which  power  was  not,  so  far 
as  we  have  evidence,  conferred  upon  others,  who  were,  never- 
theless, ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments?  Candid  minds 
need  have  no  difficulty  in  answering  this  question  in  the  af- 
firmative*    When  Dr.  M.  says  that  "there  is  no  hint  in  the 


*  "There  were jn  the  Church  at  Ephesus  three  orders  of  ministers; 
Timothy,  the  Presbyters,  who  are  also  called  Bishops  or  Overseers,  and 
the  Deacons.  That  Timothy  was  the  ordaining  officer  in  that  church  is 
beyond  all  contradiction.  There  is  not  a  hint  in  the  directions  given  to 
him  on  that  point,  to  associate  Presbyters  with  himself  ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  evident  that  he  was  to  be  supreme  and  single  in  the  dis- 
charge of  this  duty.  It  certainly  is  a  very  extraordinary  thing,  that 
when  there  was  a  number  of  Presbyters  at  Ephesus,  St.  Paul  should  put 
such  a  mark  of  reprobation  upon  presbyterian  government,  as  to  send  an 
officer  to  ordain  and  govern  that  church,  when  those  Presbyters  were 
fully  competent  to  the  business.  And  what  was  their  conduct  on  that 
occasion?  Did  they  remonstrate  against  it?  Did  they  oppose  Timothy 
in  the  execution  of  his  office?  Not  a  hint  of  that  in  scripture,  nor  in  all 
antiquity.  What  sort  of  men  must  those  Presbyters  have  been?  Cer- 
tainly either  fools  who  knew  not  their  rights;  or  men  who  had  such  a 
superabundance  of  the  "milk  of  human  kindness,"  that  they  could  not 
bear  the  least  contention,  even  in  the  sacred  cause  of  truth  and  justice." 
"If  it  be  necessary  to  set  this  matter  in  a  clearer  point  of  light,  perhaps 
the  following  observations  will  do  it.  St.  Paul  sent  from  Miletus  to 
Ephesus,  and  called  the  elders  of  the  church.  When  they  arrived  the 
Apostle  gave  them  this  solemn  charge — Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  your- 
selves, and  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  Over- 
seers, to  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood. — Here  is  not  the  least  intimation  to  these  Presbyters,  that  their 
commission  implied  the  power  of  ordaining.  There  is  no  mention  of  the 
qualifications  requisite  for  the  persons  that  were  to  be  ordained — nothii<g, 
but  to  take  care  of  their  own  conduct,  and  to  feed  with  the  word  of  life 
those  oyer  whom  they  were  placed.  But  he  gives  very  particular  direc- 
tions to  Timothy  concerning  the  persons  whom  he  should  ordain,  both 
Presbyters  and  Deacons.  Is  it  not  wonderful,  that  St.  Paul,  when  he 
was  about  to  take  hia  leave  for  ever  of  those  Presbyters,  did  not  say  on» 


29 


New  Testament  that  Timothy  and  Titus  performed  any  act, 
to  which  any  regular  minister  of  the  gospel  is  not  fully  com- 
petent," he  is  plainly  regardless  of  obvious  facts. 


word  to  them  about  so  important  a  part  of  their  duty  as  ordaining,  if  they 
possessed  that  power?  Again — St.  Paul  charges  Timothy,  not  to  receive 
an  accusation  against  an  Elder  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses;  but  he 
gives  no  such  charge  to  the  Elders  or  Overseers  of  Ephesus.  He  also  says 
to  Timothy,  i^TTi  (meaning  the  Elders)  that%in,  rebuke  before  all,  that 
others  also  may  fear.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  tban  to  suppose, 
that  those  Presbyters  who  were  subject  to  the  censures  of  Timothy,  were 
possessed  of  equal  powers  with  him.  Had  they  refused  to  submit  to  the 
just  censures  of  their  governor,  which,  upon  presbyterian  principles,  they 
.ought  to  have  done,  I  doubt  very  much  whether  their  title  of  Bishop 
would  have  been  of  service  to  them. 

Further — St.  Paul  says  to  those  Elders,  that  some  of  themselves  should 
arise^  speaking  perverse  things  to  draw  aivay  disciples  after  them.  Now, 
one  would  suppose  after  mentioning  this,  that  he  would  have  told  them 
how  to  proceed — would  have  directed  them  to  receive  an  accusation  a- 
gainst  perverse  Elders,  and  have  charged  them  to  rebuke  such  before  all. 
But  no  such  thing:  they  had  no  power  of  that  sort  committed  to  them. 
Besides,  I  cannot  conceive  how  human  ingenuity  could  have  devised  any 
thing  more  effectual,  to  make  the  Elders  speak  perverse  things  (  if  the 
Yfoxd  perverse  could  with  propriety  be  used,)  than  to  send  Timothy  to 
take  out  of  their  hands  the  power  of  ordaining,  and  of  governbg  the 
Church  at  Ephesus, 

Once  more — St.  Paul  gives  a  very  solemn  charge  to  Timothy,  /  give 
thee  charge  in  the  sight  of  God  who  quickeneih  all  things,  and  before 
Jesus  Christ,  who  before  Pontius  Pilate,  witnessed  a  good  confession, 
that  thou  keep  this  commandment,  without  spot,  unrebukeable,  until  the 
appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Apostle  had  no  expectation  that  Timothy  would  live  till  the  day 
of  judgment.  Tllis  charge,  therefore,  was  not  confined  to  the  person  of 
Timothy,  but  extended  to  bis  office  to  the  end  of  time.  It  was  of  the 
nature  of  that  promise  which  Christ  made  to  his  Apostles,  that  he  would 
he  ivith  them  to  the  end  of  the  world.  But  the  charge  given  by  the 
Apostle  to  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  was  merely  personal — it  related  to  notn- 
ing'beyond  their  own  lives.  As  they  had  no  power  to  constitute  others  in 
their  room,  00  there  is  no  charge  given  to  them  to  keep  what  was  com' 

c  2 


30 

It  is  true  that  Dr.  Miller  quotes  "the  eminent  Episcopal 
divine.  Dr.  Whitby,"  as  saying,  "the  great  controversy  con- 
cerning this  (epistle)  and  the  epistles  to  Timothy  is,  whether 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  indeed  made  bishops,  the  one  of 
Ephesus  and  the  proconsular  Asia;  the  other  of  Crete.  Now 
of  this  matter,  I  confess,  I  can  find  nothing  in  any  writer  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  nor  any  intimation  that  they  bore  that 
name."  This  Dr.  M.  and  the  Ainerican  Presbyterian  put 
in  italics,  as  indicating  their  great   estimation  of  the  impor- 

mitted  to  them  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  or  to  commit  what  they  had  re- 
ceived to  faithful  men. 

It  is  now  I  think'as  clear  as  the  great  luminary  of  the  day,  when  not  a 
cloud  obscures  his  disc,  that  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  consisting  of  Pres- 
byters, Deacons,  and  laity,  were  committed  to  the  oversight,  superin- 
tendance  and  government  of  Timothy;  and  that  the  title  of  Bishop  given 
to  the  Presbyters  of  that  church,  as  having  a  subordinate  oversight  of 
the  laity  under  Timothy,  in  no  respect  or  degree  impaired  his  superiority. 
He  was  the  Overseer  of  Overseers — the  Bishop  of  Bishops.  To  the  office 
which  Timothy  held,  succeeded  that  order  in  the  church  to  which,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  the  title  of  Bishops  has  been  appro- 
priated, and  not  to  the  second  order  indifferently  styled,  in  the  apostolic 
times,  Bishops  or  Elders.  If  our  Bishops  had  succeeded  to  the  second 
order,  they  could  possess  no  more  power  than  that  order  did. 

That  the  ofuce  which  Timothy  held  did  not  expire  with  him,  is  evident 
from  its  very  nature;  for  there  is  the  same  need  of  an  officer  now  in  the 
Church  who  can  ordain,''a3  there  was  in  the  days  of  Timothy;  and  ac- 
cordingly, we  find  from  the  testimony  of  antiquity,  that  he  had  his  suc- 
cessors, and  that  at  the  time  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  twenty-seven 
Bishops  had  governed  that  church. 

The  Church  of  Crete  will  affijrd  us  another  instance  of  Episcopal  pre- 
eminence. But  there  is  really  no  necessity  of  going  over  this  ground. 
The  instances  of  Timothy  and  Titus  are  so  parallel,  and  rest  so  much 
upon  similar  authorities,  that  v^'hat  has  been  said  concerning  the  former, 
may  generally  be  applied  to  the  latter.  To  the  testimoay  from  the  epis- 
tle itself  may  be  added,  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  primitive  wri- 
ters, who  assert  that  Titus  was  the  first  Bishop,  or  Chief  Ruler  of  the 
Church  of  Crete. — Two  Letters  to  the  Editor  of  the  Christians  Maga- 
zine. 


31 

tance  of  the  admission.  It  is  truly  wonderful  that  Pr.  M. 
did  not  see,  or  seeing,  should  have  adduced  this  admission 
on  his  own  side,  that  Dr.  Whitby  is  here  speaking,  not  of 
their  office  as  bishops,  nor  of  their  power  as  such,  but  of 
their  local  jurisdiction,  i.  e.  whether  they  were  fixed  bish- 
ops of  the  provinces  of  Ephesus  and  Crete.  No  candid 
man  who  will  read  Whitby's  Commentary  on  the  epistles 
to  Timothy  and  Titus,  will  say,  that  he  meant  to  sanc- 
tion the  slightest  suspicion  of  the  Episcopal  character  of 
Timothy  and  Titus ;  to  sustain  which  he  has  collected  a  very 
large  amount  of  testimony.  As  soon  would  he  deny  the  light 
of  the  sun  when  he  is  blazing  in  the  firmament.  Even  at  the 
end  of  Dr.  Miller's  quotation,  Dr.  Whitby  adds,  what  Dr.M. 
did  not  choose  to  copy,  the  words,  ^'but  this  defect  is  abun- 
dantly supplied  hy  the  concurrent  suffrage  of  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries'^''  * 

Dr.  M.  gives  us  "a  regular  syllogism''  as  containing  the 
arguments  of  Episcopal  writers  on  this  subject;  such  as  he 
might  put  into  their  mouths,  if  he  could,  for  a  moment,  sup- 
pose, that  they  were  incompetent  as  scholars  or  logicians  to 
perceive  the  effect  of  their  own  reasoning.  I  shall  have  oc- 
casion, hereafter,  to  try,  in  a  legitimate  way,  the  force  of  Dr, 
M's.  regular  syllogism  on  some  of  his  own  arguments.  In 
the  mean  time,  Messrs.   Editors,  1   offer  you  the  following 


*  The  following  is  Dr.  Whitby's  own  synopsis  of  the  testimony  col- 
lected by  him,  and  his  argument  founded  on  it. 

"Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  bishops  fixed  to  a  diocese,  but  yet  they 
had  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  presbyters. 

Hence  it  follows, — 1.  that  this  superiority  cannot  be  coBtrary  to  the 
gospel  rule, — 2.  that  it  is  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  churches  in 
the  apostle's  times,  for  men  to  have  jurisdiction  over  more  than  one  par- 
ticular congregation, — 3.  that  the  apostolical  power  of  governing  church- 
es, might  be  committed  to  others  whom  they  would  entrust  with  it, — 4. 
th~at  they  did  commit  thbtruist  to  others,  is  proved-from  Scripture,  tradi- 
tion, and  reason." 


32 

t^^hich  is  quite  as  regular,  and  much  more  correct  and  appli- 
cable, as  a  substitute  for  his. — The  power  to  ordain  and  gov- 
ern elders  necessarily  implies  superiority  to  them:  Timothy 
and  Titws  had  that  power:  Therefore,  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  superior  to  elders. 

Dr.  M.  proceeds:  ^^ another  argument  from  Scripture, 
commonly  urged  b)'  our  Episcopal  brethren,  is  derived  from 
the  angels,  addressed  in  the  epistles  to  the  seven  churches  of 
the  lesser  Asia."  In  his  usual  presumptuous  manner  he  adds 
that  this  argument  is  destitute  of  plausibility.  He  rightly 
says,  however,  that  "the  term  angel  signifies  messenger.  As 
an  ecclesiastical  title,  it  is  derived  from  the  old  Testameat. 
In  every  Jewish  synagogue  there  was  an  angel  of  the  church 
whose  duty  it  was  to  preside  and  take  the  lead  in  public  wor- 
ship." But  Dr.  M.  has  in  his  usual  manner,  omitted  to  add, 
as  he  should  have  done,  that  this  angel  was  assisted  by  a  body 
of  presbyters  or  elders,  over  whom  he  presided.  Although 
this  fact  sustains  the  Episcopal  theory;  and  was,  for  that  rea- 
son probably,  omitted  by  Dr.  M.,  yet  he  asserts,  that,  "if  we 
suppose  each  of  these  angels  to  be  the  ordinary  pastor  of  a 
Mngle  church  or  congregation,  it  will  perfectly  accord  with 
rvery  representation  concerning  them  in  the  epistles  in  ques- 
tion." But  how  will  you,  Messrs.  Editors,  reconcile  the  fart 
Jijf  there  being  but  "a  single  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,'' 
'it  this  time,  at  Epkesus,  when,  years  befjre,  Paul  had  sent 
for  the  elders  of  that  church,  to  Miletus?  Had  the  church  al- 
ready become  so  reduced  as  to  have  but  one  pastor?  Even  this 
epistle  bears  witness,  that  there  had  been  some  among  them 
who  claimed  to  be  apostles,  which  implies  that  there  was  a  de- 
mand at  Ephesus  for  more  ministerial  labor  th-n  one  could 
supply;  but  take  the  case,  presented  above,  that  it  had,  as  in 
the  time  of  Timothy  and  Paul,  a  bishop  and  presbyters,  and 
the  comparison  will  hold  with  the  angel,  who  presided,  and 
the  ministering  elders.  But,  certainly,  in  each  of  these  epistles 
anindkidual   is  addressed;  and  it  must  be  very  difficult  in- 


33 

deed  for  those  who  look  at  the  known  circumstances  "of  the 
churches  in  that  region,  at  that  time,  to  believe,  with  Dr.  M., 
that  there  was  but  one  pastor  in  each  of  the  seven  populous 
churches,  indeed  Dr.  M.  himself  says  below,  that  "nothing 
is  plainer  than  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  the 
same  church."  "What  can  be  more  plain,"  says  good  old 
Bishop  Hall,  "than  that  in  every  one  of  these  churches,  there 
were  many  presbyters,  yet  but  one  angel.  If  that  one  were 
not  in  place  above  the  rest,  and  higher  by  the  head  than  they, 
how  comes  he  to  be  noted  in  the  throng?  Why  was  not  the 
direction  to  all  the  angels  of  the  church  at  Ephesus?  All 
were  angels  in  respect  to  their  ministry;  one  was  the  angel  in 
respect  of  his  fixed  superiority.  There  were  thousands  of  stars 
in  this  firmanient  of  the  Asian  churches;  there  were  but  sev- 
en of  the  first  magnitude;  who  can  endure  such  an  evasion, 
that  while  one  is  mentioned,  many  are  meant."  "In  support 
of  the  opinion  that  Episcopacy  was  established  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  apostles,  and  with  their  approbation,"  says  the 
learned  historian  Mosbeim,  "we  are  supplied  with  an  argu- 
ment of  such  strength,  in  those  angels  to  whom  St.  John 
addressed  the  epistles,  which  by  the  command  of  our  Saviour 
himself,  he  sent  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  as  the  presby- 
terians,  as  they  are  termed,  let  them  labor  and  strive  as  they 
may,  will  never  be  able  to  overcome." — Commentaries  on 
the  first  three  Centuries.  VidaVs  translation :  p.  227.  So 
strong  indeed  is  the  testimony  borne  to  Episcopacy  by  the 
case  of  the  seven  angels,  that  even  Baxter  was  led  by  it  to 
admit  that  "there  were  fixed  bis^hops  in  the  time  of  St.  John." 
Dr.  Miller  leads  you,  gentlemen,  to  make  very  light  of  the 
belief  of  Episcopalians  that  James  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 
Lightly,  however,  as  he  treats  it,  when  to  his  own  statement 
we  add  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  the  ecclesiastical  historian, 
and  indeed  of  all  antiquity,  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  set  it 
aside.    Dr.  M.  does  not  attempt  an  argument  on  the  subject.* 

♦How  great  mast  have  been  the  irritation  on  Dr.  M's.  mind  agaiuit 


34 

When  Dr.  Miller  asserts  that  "the  learned  Jerome,  in  the 
fourth  century,  declares  concerning  prelacy,  as  having  no 
foundation  in  divine  appointment,  and  as  gradually  brought 
in  hy  human  ambition,"  he  gives  us  a  most  strange  perver^ 
sion  of  Jerome's  language.  Jerome  actually  represents 
Episcopacy  as  brought  in,  not  hy,  but  as  a  needed  cure  for 
human  ambition — to  prevent  strife  among  the  presbytery; 
and  in  the  very  passage  to  which  Dr.  M.  alludes,  he  refers 
the  introduction  of  Episcopacy,  to  the  time  when  jealousies 
began  among  the  presbyters  of  Corinth  in  the  absence  of 
Paul.  (I  Cor.  i.  12.) — His  own  language  is,  "Till  through  the 
instinct  ot  the  devil,  there  grew  in  the  church,  factions;  and 
among  the  people  it  began  to  be  professed,  I  am  of  Paul,  and 
1  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas;  churches  were  governed  by 
the  common  advice  of  presbyters;  but  when  every  one  began 
to  reckon  those  whom  he  had  baptized  as  his  own,  and  not 
Christ's,  it  was  decreed  in  the  whole  world,  that  one,  chosen 
out  oi  the  presbyters,  should  be  placed  over  the  rest,  to  whom 
all  care  of  the  church  should  belong,  and  so  the  seeds  of 
schism  be  removed."  What  a  misrepresentation  of  this  lan- 
guage is  Dr .  M's .  statement !  Besides,  how,  if  Jerome  were 
on  his  side,  could  he  quote  him,  when  he  is  liable  to  the  same 
objection  which  he  brings  against  Theodoret,  of  living 
three  or  four  centuries  after  the  apostles?  Will  Dr.  Miller 
never  be  consistent  with  himself?  Jerome  says,  elsewhere, 
"all  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles:" — he  saysj 
that  "others  were  ordained  apostles  by  those  [apostles] 
whom  our  Lord  had  chosen" — that  there  were  bishops  in 
Alexandria  from  the  time  of  St.  Mark — that  St.  James  was 
the  first  bishop  of  Jerusabm — that  Timothy  ^and  Titus  were 


his  "Episcopal  brethren,"  when  he  could  say,  as  he  does  at  this  point, 
of  the  sources  of  proof  which  ihey  allege  from  Scripture,  that,  ^Hhey 
are  just  as  destitute  of  force,  and  just  as  delusive,  as  the  popish  doctrine 
that  Ihe  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  and  ike  transmission  of  that  primacy  to 
the  bishops  of  Rome,  may  be  proved  from  the  word  of  God.'\' 


35 

bishops  of  Ephesus  and  Crete — that  Ignatius  was  bishop  of 
Antioch,  etc.  etc.  But  Dr.  M.  says,  that  the  sense  in  which 
he  represents  Jerome's  opinion,  is  the  same  in  which  it  was 
understood  by  the  famous  English  bishops,  Jewel,  "Whitgift, 
Stiilingfleet,and  others.  He  does  not  tell  us,  however,  wh€re,m 
their  writings,  the  proofs  that  they  so  understood  Jerome  are 
to  be  found.  There  is  no  hazard  in  saying,  that  he  could  not 
so  refer  to  ihem,  as  the  following  actual  quotations  will  serve 
to  show.  Bp.  Jewel  says  in  his  preface  to  his  Apology  for  the 
Church  of  England  that  ^'Episcopacy  was  settled  in  all  the 
churches  in  the  very  days  of  the  apostles  and  hy  them-^''  and  in 
the  same  work,  chap,  xiii.sect.  10.,  he  actually  quotes  Jerome 
as  saying,  that  ^'all  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles.*' 
Abp.  Whitgift,  in  a  letter  to  Beza,  (1553)  says  "the  Bishops 
were  successors  of  the  apostles,  especially  in  certain  points  of 
their  function."  Bp.  StilUngfleet  in  his  Unreasonableness  of 
Separation,  says,  "the  bishops  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the 
government  of  the  churches :" — "There  is  as  much  reason  to 
believe  the  apostolical  succession  to  be  of  divine  institution, 
as  the  canon  of  Scripture,  or  the  observation  of  the  Lord's 
day" — again,  "the  case  of  Timothy  is  an  uncontrollable  in- 
stance of  diocesan  Episcopacy."  Quotations  of  this  tenor 
directly  opposed  to  Dr.  Miller's  assertion,  might  be  largely 
increased.  How  little  could  Dr.  M.  know  of  those  men,  and 
th»ir  writings,  when  he  alleged,  that  they  understood  Jerome 
as  saying^ithat  Episcopacy  was  brought  in  by  human  inven- 
tion, and  had  no  foundation  in  divine  appointment! 

And  now  Ignativs  again  crosses  our  path.  Dr.  M.  has 
now  discovered  that  this  writer,  concerning  whom  his  opin- 
ions have  been  as  various,  as  the  shades  of  the  forest 
leaves  in  autumn — this  writer,  "who  is  commonly  regarded 
and  resorted  to  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  the  Episcopal  claim," 
is  no  longer  to  be  considered  as  such;  for,  the  opinions  of  all 
learned  men,  and  common  sense,  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. Dr.  Miller  gravely  says  that  he  does  "not  wish,  a 


36 

more  distinct  and  graphic  description  of  presbyterianism 
than  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  represent  as  existing  in  all  the 
churches  which  he  addressed"!  Let  us  see  how  this  strange 
argument  will  apply.  Dr.  M.  says  "Ignatius  speaks  express- 
ly of  a  bishop,  elders,  and  deacons,  existing  in  every  worship- 
ing assembly-Presbyterians  are  the  only  denomination  who 
have  in  every  worshiping  assembly,  a  bishop,  presbyters,  or 
elders,  and  deacons."  But  by  turning  back  to  page  20  it  will  be 
seen  that  Dr.  M.  contends  earnestly,  and  absurdly  misquotes 
Ignatius  to  show,  that  bishops  are  not,  and  presbyters  alone 
are,  the  true  successors  of  the  apostles:  "the  presbyters  suc- 
ceed in  the  place  of  the  bench  of  the  apostles."  If,  however, 
Ignatius  is  a  witness  not  for  Episcopacy,  but  Presbyterianism, 
then  the  presbyters  he  refers  to,  are  the  present  ruling  elders 
of  the  Presbyterian  church.  You  will  not,  Messrs,  Editors, as- 
sert, that  your  ruling  elders  exercise  now,  or  at  any  previous 
time  have  exercised,  all  the  duties  of  the  ministry, — that  they 
have  in  these  duties  succeeded  the  apostles.  Yet  Dr.  M. 
says,  in  the  former  part  of  this  fourth  chapter,  that  "as  minis- 
ters of  Christ,  empowered  to  go  forth  preaching  the  gospel  and 
administering  Christian  sacraments,  they  had  successors,  and 
these  stccessors  were,  manifestly,  all  those  who  were  empow- 
ered to  preach  the  gospel,  and  administer  the  sacramental 
seals:  for,  in  the  final  commission  which  the  Saviour  gave  to 
the  apostles, — they  are  sent  forth  to  disciple  allnations,  and  to 
baptise  them,  etc."  Ruling  elders,  I  believe,  do  none  of  these 
things,  and  therefore,  by  Dr.  Miller's  own  testimony,  are  not 
successors  to  the  apostles.  If  it  be  said,  that  Dr.  M.  means 
that  these  elders  "succeed  to  the  bench  of  the  apostles"  as 
ruling  only  J  it  may  be  answered  again,  in  Dr.  M's.  own 
words,  that  "the  least  hint  cannot  be  produced  from  the  New 
Testament,  that  the  powers  possessed  by  the  apostles  were  af- 
terwards divided?'^  If,  moreover,  the  ruling  elders  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  successors  of 
ihe  apostles,  with  their  limited  duties;  and  if  the  apostles  had 


57 

no  successors  superior  to  them,  (as  is  the  obvious  inference,  ia 
Dr.  M^'s.  application  of  the  testimony  of  Ignatius  to  presby- 
terianism,)  to  whom  it  may  be  asked,  do  the  pastors  of  that 
church  succeed?  If  it  be  answered,  to'the  bishops  of  Ignatius, 
I  again  inquire,  but  of  whom  are  the  bishops  of  Ignatius  suc- 
cessors? Not  of  the  apostles,  upon  Dr.  M's.  own  showing, 
for  they  are  succeeded  by  the  elders.  Into  \\hat  a  dilemma 
has  he  thus  brought  you,  Messrs  Editors!  Your  elders  suc- 
ceed the  apostles,  but  j-our  pastors,  who,  upon  this  principle, 
have  no  prototype,  and  are  plainly  without  divine  institution, 
preside  over  the  successors  of  the  apostolic  bench!  But  what 
does  your  Form  of  Church  Government  say  on  this  subject?  Its 
5th  chapter  is  in  these  words :  "Ruling  elders  are  properly 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  chosen  by  them,  for  the 
purpose  of  exercising  government  and  discipline,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  pastors  or  ministers.  This  office  has  been  understood 
by  a  great  part  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  churches,  to  be 
designated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  the  title  of  governments, 
and  of  those  who  rule  well  but  do  not  labor  in  the  word  and 
doctrine."— Neither,  in  declaring  the  nature  of  the  office  of 
pastor,  does  the  Form  of  Government,  make  any  reference  to 
apostolic  succession  for  its  ministers.  Dr.  M.  is  not  there- 
fore sustained  by  the  constitution  of  his  own  church,  in  his 
attempt  to  show,  that  presbyters,  whether  pastors,  or  ruling 
elders,  were  successors  of  the  apostles.  Is  it  possible  that  be 
did  not  see  the  absurdity  of  attempting  to  make  Ignatius  a 
witness  against  Episcopacy,  whose  testimony  to  a  hierarchy 
is  so  plain,  and  incontestable,  and  often  repeated,  as  to  have 
been  itself  the  cause  of  inducing  some  learned  men,  and  a- 
mong  them  Episcopalians,  to  reject  his  authority  altogether! 
But  allow  me,  in  relation  to  this  question,  to  quote  a  writer 
whom  you  will,  I  am  sure,  at  once  allow  to  have  no  induce- 
ment whatever  to  represent  it  favorably  to  the  view  which 
Episcopalians  have  always  taken  of  it,  if  not  compelled  to 
do  so,  by  the  controlling  force  of  indisputable  teslimony. 


38 

The  Rev.  James  Smith,  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church,  has  recently  written  and  published  in  our  own  city,  a 
"FJistory  of  the  Christian  Church."  On  p.  49  of  that  work 
the  following  impartial  statement  occurs. 

"It  must  not  be  dissembled  that  different  ranks  and  degrees 
appear  to  have  been  established  from  the  very  first  among  the 
ministers  of  religion.  It  is  impossible  to  consider  the  Apos- 
tles, or  even  such  eminent  peisons  as  Timothy,  Titus,  &.c.  as 
upon  an  entire  footing  with  the  generality  of  presbyters,  or 
teachers  in  the  different  churches.  From  the  Epistles  of  the 
primitive  fathers,  and  particularly  from  those  of  St.  Ignatius,  it 
appears  incontestably  that  the  church  government  by  the  three 
distinct  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons,  was  fully 
established  in  the  course  of  the  first  century:  as  each  of  these 
orders  is  particularly  addressed,  and  as  that  father  does  not 
mention  the  institution  as  a  novelty,  there  is  the  utmost  rea- 
son to  believe  that  this  arrangement  was  made  by  the  Apos- 
tles themselves.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Ignatius  was 
the  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  suffered  martrydom  at  Rome  so 
early  as  107." 

This  statement  is  not  only  impartial,  but,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  position,  highly  creditable  to  the  author,* 

But,  after  all  that  has  been  said  on  this  subject,  what  is  the 
value  of  all  Dr.  Miller's  arguments  about  succession,  if  he 
gives  the  slightest  degree  of  credit  to   the  assertion   of  "the 


*In  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  EusobJus,  composed  within  two  hun- 
dred years  of  the  apostolic  age,  are  regular  lists  of  the  Bishops  of  Jeru- 
salem, of  Rome,  Antioch,  and  Alexandria,  and  other  principal  cities, 
copied  from  the  records  of  those  churches  by  Eusebius  himself.  He 
names  thirty-two  Bishops  as  having  presided  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
down  to  his  own  time,  beginning  with  St.  James.  The  first  Bishop  of 
Rome  was  Linus;  of  Alexandria,  St.  Mark;  of  Antioch,  Evodiu^,  of 
Ephesus,  Timothy;  ol  Crete,  Titus;  of  Smyrna,  Polycarp,  the  mar- 
tyr— all  of  them  ordained,  and  constituted  Bishops  of  those  places,  by 
the  apostles  themselves. 


39 

eminent  episcopal  divine," — ''the  lerimed  and  able  prelatist," 
Dr.  Barrow,  that  "the  apostolical  office  in  its  nature  and  de- 
siorn,  was  not  successive,  not  communicable  to   others.'^     Into 
such  amazing  inconsistencies  is  Dr.  Miller  driven  by  his  in 
veterate  animosity  to  Episcopacy. 

Dr.  Miller  is  so  careless  of  his  reputation  for  discretion  and 
judgment,  as  to  make  deliberately  the  declaration,  that,  '^even 
if  prelacy*''* — a  terra,  which,  in  defiance  of  the  usage  of  all 
good  writers-  and  of  all  Episcopalians  especially,  he  contin- 
ually substitutes  for  Episcopacy — ^^^even  if  prelacy  was  found 
unequivocally  represented  as  existing,  by  the  Fathers,  in  fifty 
years  after  the  last  apostle,  yet,  if  it  be  not  found  in  the  Bible, 
such  testimony  would  by  no  means  establish  its  apostolical  ap- 
pointment?''^     Again  :   "we   know  iivdeed  that   no  such 

TESTIMONY  EXISTS." 

It  is  more  because  of  the  air  of  confidence  with  which  these 
assertions  are  made,  than  any  power  they  have  in  themselves. 


*  "If  from  the  very  days  of  the  apostles  downwards,  for  more  tlian 
fifteen  hundred  years,  the  order  of  the  Church  was  uninterruptedly  episco- 
pal, as  many  advocates  of  episcopacy  maintain,"  says  the  late  eminent 
presbyterian.  Dr.  Mason,  of  New  York,  in  his  Plea  for  Sacramental 
Communion,  p,  76,  "although  even  such  an  argument  could  not  be  ad- 
mitted against  Scriptural  proof,  yet  it  would  be  extremely  embarrassing 
to  their  opponents.  The  difficulty  of  explaining  so  strange  a  phenome- 
non, would  create  in  conscientious  men  a  fear  that  there  must  be  some 
mistake  in  such  a  construction  of  holy  writ  as  should  be  thwarted  by  it; 
and  incline  their  minds  to  an  interpretation  with  which  it  should  be 
found  to  accord."  He  denies  indeed,  that  any  such  difficulty  exists, 
but  upon  this  subject  let  me  cite  a  disinterested  witness,  who  treats  it 
M  a  mere  historical  fact.  Gibbon  in  h\3  Hid.  of  the  DecHne  and  Fall 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  ii.  p.  3S2,  says,  "after  we  have  passed 
the  difficulties  of  the  first  century," — which  terminated  but  little  more 
than  sixty  years  from  the  Crucifixion,  about  the  time  of  the  death  of 
St.  John,  and  fifty  years  before  the  canon  of  Scripture  was  made — "we 
find  the  Episcopal  government  universally  established,  till  it  was  inter- 
rupted by  the  republican  genius  of  the  Swiss  and  German  refomers." 


40 

that  they  are  noticed  here.  The  testimony  of  Jerome,  even 
as  given  by  Dr.  M.  himself,  will  be  sufficient,  with  candid  men, 
to  refute  the  last;  and  he  can  have  small  pretensions  to  a  ra- 
tional judgment,  who  would  insist  upon  the  first.  Let  us  see 
how  writers  of  authority  on  his  own  side,  i.  e.  writers  who  ei- 
ther were  themselves  Presbyterians,  or  not  Episcopalians,  con- 
sider this  matter. 

Dr.  Durell,  an  English  writer  of  authority,  in  his  Fieto  of 
the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,  (p.  161.)  says  of  the  celebrated 
Calvin:  "For  all  that  I  have  either  seen  of,  or  in  him,  or  pro- 
duced out  of  his  writings,  I  am  of  this  mind,  that  Ejnscovacy 
was  the  government  that  he  approved  most,  and  that  he  took 
it  to  be  of  apostolical  institution.'^* 

Martin  Bucer,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  continental 
Reformers,  said;  "By  the  perpetual  observation  of  all  church- 
es, even  fro7n  the  apostle's  times,  we  see,  that  it  seemed  good 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  that,  among  presbyters,  to  whom  the  pro- 
curation of  churches  was  chiefly  committed,  there  should  be 
one  that  should  have  the  care  or  charge  of  divers  churches, 
and  the  whole  ministry  committed  to  him;  and  by  reason  of 
that  charge,  he  was  above  the  rest;  and  therefore,  the  name 
of  bishop  was  attributed  peculiarly  to  those  chief  rulers*" 
How's  Vindication,  p.  196. 

Daille,  the  author  of  a  celebrated  work  on  the  Right  use  of 
//^e  Fa/Zier^,  speaking  of  the  English  Bishops,  said,  "We  confess 
that  the  foundation  of  their  charge  is  good  and  lawful,  estab- 
lished  by  the  apostles  according  to  the  command  of  Christ.""  See 
Bingham's  French  Church's  Apology. 

Du  Moulin,  another  eminent  and  learned  French  Protea- 


*  The  following  passages  from  Calvin  and  Beza  have  been  often  quoted 
in  controversies  of  this  nature.  "If  they  would  give  us,"  says  Calvin, 
"such  a  hierarchy,  in  which  the  bishops  have  such  a  pre-eminence  as  that 
they  do  not  refuse  to  be  subject  unto  Christ,  then  I  will  confess  that  they 
are  worthy  of  all  anathemas,  if  any  such  shall  be  found,  vi'ho  will  not  rever- 
ence it,  and  submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience. "And  Beza 
says,  "if  there  be  any  who  reject  the  whole  order  of  Episcopacy,  God 
forbid  that  any  man  of  a   sound  mind  should  assent  to  the  madness  of 


41 

tant,  ia  a  professed  defence  of  presbyterian  government,  yet 
admits,  that,  *'/Ae  Episcopal  form  of  government,  was  receiv- 
ed by  all  churches,  every  where,  presently  after  the  apostles^ 
limesy  or  even  in  their  lime,  as  ecclesiastical  history  witness- 
eth."     Adam's  Religious  World,  vol.  2.  Art.  Episcopacy. 

Grotius,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  ornaments  of  the  church 
of  Holland,  said,  in  his  treatise  on  Church  Government:  "£- 
piscopacy  had  ils  beginning  in  the  apostolical  times.  This  is  tes- 
tified by  the  catalogues  of  bishops  left  us  by  Irenaeus,  Euse- 
bius,  Socrates,  Theodoret  and  others,  who  all  begin  with  the 
apostolical  age."  Le  C/erc,  also  a  member  of  the  church  of  Hoi- 
land,  and  editor  of  the  celebrated  work  of  Grotius  on  the  Truth 
of  Christianity y  in  his  additions  to  that  work,  book  i.  sect.  xi. — 
thus  testifies  on  this  subject:  "They,  who,  without  prejudice 
have  read  over  the  most  ancient  Christian  writers  that  now  re- 
main, very  well  know,  that  the  Episcopal  discipline ,  prevailed 
every  where  in  the  age  imnVfdiately  after  the  apostles;  whence  we 
may  collect,  that  it  is  of  apostolical  institution.  The  other 
which  they  call  Presbyterian,  was  instituted  in  many  places  of 
France,  Switzerland,  Germany  and  Holland,  by  those  who  in 
the  sixteenth  century  made  a  separation  from  the  church  of 
Rome."  These,  be  it  remembered,  are  forced,  not  voluntary, 
admissions  of  men  of  unquestioned  learning  belonging  to  the 
Presbyterian  churches,  in  those  countries  where  such  church- 
es originated.  Writers  ©n  the  same  side,  that  is,  in  favor  of 
Presbyterianism,  in  England,  Scotland,  and  our  own  country, 
though  they  have  professed  to  speak  of  Episcopacy  as  intro- 
duced afier  the  apostles'  times,  have  never  been  able  to  agree 
upon  the  period  of  ils  introduction.  Campbell,  Baxter,  Dod- 
ridge,  and  Dr.  Miller  assign  very  different  periods.  This  fact 
is  notorious.  They  also  disagree  as  to  the  causes  which  pro- 
daced  the  change.  Dr.  Miller  chooses,  in  the  abundance  of 
his  charity,  to  impute  it  to  corruption;  although  it  occurred, 
according  to  him,  at  a  period,  when,  as  history  testifies,  even 
the  heathen  enemies  of  the  gospel  speak  of  .uncommon  purity 
of  life  and  principle,  as  the  universal  characteristic  of  its  fol- 
lowers, and  when  eminence  in  the  gospel  cause  only  opened 
the  way  to  persecution,  suffering,  and  the  flames! 

D  2 


42 

The  learned  Bisop  Jeremy  Taylor,  in  allusion  to  tbe 
testimony  of  Blondel,  who  fixed  the  introduction  at  thirty-five 
years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  eloquently  and  truly  says; 
"Now  then,  Episcopacy  is  confessed  to  be  of  about  sixteen  hun- 
dred years  continuance;*  and  if  before  this  they  can  show  any 
ordination  by  mere  presbyters;  by  any  but  an  apostle,  or  an 
apostolical  man;f  and  if  there  were  not  visibly  a  distinction 
of  powefs  and  persons  relatively  in  the  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment; or  if  they  can  g'ive  a  rational  account,  why  they  who 
are  forced  to  confess  the  honor  and  distinct  order  of  Episco- 
pacy for  about  sixteen  ages,  should,  in  the  dark  interval  of 
thirty-five  years,  (in  which  they  can  pretend  to  no  monument, 
or  record,  to  the  contrary)  yet  make  unlearned  scruples  of 
things  they  cannot  colourably  prove;  if,  I  say,  they  can  rea- 
sonably account  for  these  things,  I,  for  my  own  part,  will  be 
ready  to  confess,  that  they  are  not  guilty  of  the  greatest,  and 
most  unreasonable  schism  in  the  world  ;|  but  else  they  have 
no  colour  to  palliate  the  unlearned  crime!"  Sermons  vol.  3* 
;?.  97. 

Such  also  was  the  light  in  which  the  Immortal  Chillingworth, 
the  author  of  the  noble  axiom, /Ae  Bible^  and  the 'Bible  only  is 
the  religion  of  Protestants,  regarded  this  subject:  "  When"-3aid 
he — "I  shall  see  all  the  fables  of  the  metamorphosis  acted, 
and  prove  true  stories,  when  I  shall  see  all  the  democracies 
in  the  world  lie  down  and  sleep,  and  awake  into  monarchies; 
then  will  I  begin  to  believe,  that  presbyterial  government, 
having  continued  in  ^the  Church  during  the  apostles'  times, 
should  presently  after,  against  the  apostles  doctrine  and  the 
will  of  Christ,  be  whirled  about  like  a  scene  in  a  mask,  and 
transformed  into  Episcopacy. — Episcopacy  being  granted  to 
be  ancient  and  universal,  must  be  granted  also  to  be  apostol- 
ic."    Works  vol.  2.  p.  537. 

The  learned  Richard  Hooker,  who,  is  on  all  sides,  admitted 
to  be  the  ablest  writer  on  ecclesiastical  subjects  in  our  lan- 
guage, offered  long  since,  in  his  profound  work  on  Ecclesias- 


*Thi3  was  writtea  in  1660.     fSuch  as  Barnabas,  Timothy,  &c. 
$This  was  written  durbg  the  time  of  the  Puritans,  in  England. 


43 

tical  Polity,  the  following  well  known  challenge,  which,  to  this 
day,  remains  unanswered.  "We  require  you  to  find  out  but 
one  church,  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  that  hath  been 
ordered  by  your  (presbyterian)  discipline,  or  hath  not  been  or- 
dered by  ours,  that  is  to  say,  by  Episcopal  regiment,  since  the 
time  that  the  blessed  apostles  were  here  conversant."*  Il  is 
an  indisputable  fact  that  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  hare 
never  yet  been  able. to  produce  from  Scripture,  or  antiquity, 
an  instance  of  the  joint  action  of  a  presbytery;  or  any  act  can- 
sisteut  with  the  idea  that  presbyters  were  only  responsible  to 
each  other,  and  not  to   bishops. f     There  is   a  material  differ- 


*Th'e  learned  and  pious  Heber  uses  very   nearly  the  same   language. 
See  his  Sermons  in  England  p.  249-252. 

t  The  only  case  ever  pretended  to  be  discovered,  is  alluded  to  by  Dr. 
M.  in  another  part  of  this  chapter.  The  narrative  in  the  beginniiJg  of 
Acts  xiii.  is  alleged  to  have  been  an  ordination  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  by 
men,  none  of  whom  were  prelates.  Those  who  participated  in  this  act, 
are  certainly  not  called  apostles,  nor  bishops,  but ^rop^e/s  and  teachers. 
But  is  it  possible,  that  men  who  examine  into  the  facts  of  this  case,  can 
seriously  maintain  that  it  was  an  ordination  to  any  office  of  the  minb- 
try?  What  then  does  Paul  mean  when  he  says  of  himself,  that  he  was 
"an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  hymen,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God 
the  Father."  (GaL  i.  1.)  Had  not  both  Barnabas  and  Saul  exercised 
their  ministry  before  this  time,  in  other  places,  as  well  as  a  whole  year  in 
the  very  city  of  Antioch,  where  this  act  took  place?  Are  you  prepared, 
Messrs  Editors,  to  admit,  in  defiance  of  all  Dr.  M's.  previous  statements 
on  that  point,  that  Barnabas  had  now,  by  this  act,  become  the  equal  of 
the  apostles,  and  admitted  jointly  wiih  Paul  to  that  "peculiar  and  pre- 
eminent" rank?  Or  must  Paul  be  now  denied,  for  theory's  sake,  in  op- 
position to  his  own  claims  oft  repeated,  to  be  himself,  an  apostle?  But 
is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  this  was  720  ordination  to  a  min- 
isterial office,  but  merely  a  designation  and  separation  to  a  special  mis- 
sion— the  performance  of  which  is  fully  recorded  in  Acts  xiii.  and  xir. 
"The  Holy  Ghost  said  separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work 
ivhereuiito  I  have  called  them: — So  they  being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  departed" — visited  sundry  places  where  the  gospel,  probably,  had 
not  been  preached — gathered  churches — revisited  some  of  them — ordain- 
ed eiders  in  every  church,  and  then  returned  to  Antioch,  "from  wher  .^ 


44 

ence  between  a  mere  'plurality  of  presbyters,  as  in  Ephesus, 
(Acts  XX.)  and  their  acting  together  as  a  body  having  corporate 
authority. — Nor  is  there,  prior  to  the  Reformation,  an  instance 
recorded  in  Ecclesiastical  history,  of  any  pretensions  to  the 
presbyterian  mode  of  church  government,  as  opposed  to  the 
episcopal,  except  that  of  Aerius,  a  presbyter  of  Sebastia  in 
PontuS;  a  follower  of  the  Arian  heresy;  and  even  he  failed  in 
his  attempt  to  give  currency  to  his  opinions.  Episcopacy  has 
never  been,  in  any  instance,  deliberately  a-nd  voluntarily  l^id 
aside  by  any  body  of  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  with  the 
exception  of  the  English  and  Scottish  presbyterians.  The 
European  continental  reformers  always  justified  their  depar- 
ture from  episcopacy   by  the  plea  of  rigorous  necessity. 

Dr.  M.  says  that  he  can  not  only  establish  that  there  is  no 
evidence  in  favor  of  diocesan  episcopacy  to  be  found  in 
Scripture,  but  also  that  he  can  show  that  the  testimony  in  fa- 
vor of  ministerial  parity  found  in  the  New  Testament,  is  clear 
and  strong.  As  I  do  not  intend  to  become  the  assailant  of 
your  system,  I  shall  notice  what  he  says  on  this  subject, 
in  a  very  brief  way,  and  only  as  it  has  a  bearing  on  Episco- 
pacy.— He  alleges  that  "nothing  is  plainer  than  that  our  bless- 
ed  Lord  severely  rebuked,  and  explicitly  condemned  all  con- 
tests among  his  ministering  servants  about  rank  and  pre-emi- 
nence." Undeniably  : — but  how  does  this  prove  that  there 
was  no  ranker  pre-eminence?  On  the  contrary  it  rather 
takes  for  granted  that  there  wa?.  Why  should  men  contend 
aboiit  what  was  neither  in  existence,  nor  in  prospect  ? 

Dr.  M;  perseveres,  notwithstanding  the  contrary  has  beerj 
many  times  proved  to  him,  in  speaking  of  the  Waldenscs  as 
not  being  Episcopalians,  and  as  sustaining  his  views.  A  few 
brief  quotations  will  be  sufficient  on  this  point.  Mosheim 
says:  (Cent.  xii.  chap.  5.  sec.  13.)  "The  government  of  the 
church  was  committed,  by  the  Waldenses  to  bishops,  presby- 
ters, and  deacons  ;  for  they  acknowledged  that  these  three  ec- 
clesiastical orders   were  instituted  by  Christ  himself."     Mr. 


ihey  had  been  recommended  to  the  grace  of  God /or  the  work  which  they 
had  fulfilled,^'  and  for  which  of  course  iheir  commission  was  at  an  end. 


45 

Gilley  in  his  account  of  his  visit  to  the  Waldenses,  says:  "Up- 
on mj  enqiiiriog  of  M.  Peyrani  whether  there  had  not  for- 
merly been  bishops,  properly  so  called,  in  the  Yaudois  Church, 
he  answered,  yes." — la  a  communication  made  by  M.  Pey- 
rani, then  at  the  head  of  the  Waldensian  Church,  to  the  Lon- 
don society,  for  propagating  the  Gospel  in  1820,  he  expressed 
his  regret  at  those  misfortunes  which  had  deprived  the  Wal- 
densian Church  of  the  benefit  of  an  Episcopal  government. 
[Christian  Observer,  1820  p.  874.) — "The  proofs  which  Mr. 
Sims  adduces  of  there  having  been  the  three  orders  of  bish- 
ops, priests,  and  deacons,  among  the  ancient  Vaudois,  are 
ample  and  conclusive."  [Christ.  Ohs.  1828.  p.  254.)  The 
late  Dr.  J.  P.  Wilson  an  eminent,  and  learned  Presbyterian 
minister  of  Philadelphia,  says  of  them  :  "The  Waldenses — 
were  covertly  Episcopal,  though  after  Claude,  not  papal  :  but 
never  pre  sbyterial,  prior  to  the  Helvetic  abjuration  of  popery. — 
The  Syrian  Christians,  the  Culdees,  and  the  Waldenses 
were  all  of  Episcopal  origin."  Christian  Spectator,  J^ew 
Haven,  1828,  p.  57,  58. 

Again: — Dr.  M.  says,  without  any  qualification  whatever: 
"It  is  acknowledged,  by  the  great  mass  of  learned  and  pious 
men,  of  all  Protestant  denominations,  that  it  is  plain  from 
the  apostolical  writings,  that  the  ecclesiastical  order  of  the 
synagogue  was  transferred  by  inspired  men  to  the  christian 
church."  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  Dr.  M.  could  have 
been  mistaken  upon  this  subject;  yet,  if  otherwise,  his  reading 

must  have  been  very  limited  in  relation    to  it ;  so  much  so  in- 

if        .  .    . 

deed  as  to  render   his  opinion  worthy  of  little  confidence  on 

the  subject.  "All  impar^io-Z  judges" — says  the  Christian  Ob- 
server (1804.)  "will  admit  that  he  has  the  best  of  the  argu- 
ment, who  contends  that  the  government  of  the  primitive 
church  was  formed  upon  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Priesthood. 
That  this  was  understood  by  the  early  Christians  to  be  the 
case,  is  not  denied  even  by  the  prejudiced  Mosheim."  (See  his 
Ecc.  Hist.  cent.  2,  chap.  2.  sect.  4.)  The  Synagogue  was,  in 
fact,  only  a  human  institution  made  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
a  knowledge  of  the  law  among  the  people:  its  officers  were 
an  angel,  rulera  or  presbyters  (a  kind  of  civil  magistrate)  and 


46 

deacons,  but  it  had  no  sacrifices  or  sacraments.  Its  ministers 
had  no  sacred  character,  and  performed  no  duties  of  divine 
institution.  Its  analogy  with  the  Christian  Church  is  therefore 
much  more  than  doubtful.*  But  even  if  the  Church  had  been 
modeled  upon  the  plan  of  the  Synagogue,  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy  would  gain  no  advantage,  for  there  would  still  be 
a  great  and  necessary  difference  between  them*  The  Jews 
had  in  every  large  city,  for  instance,  many  synagogues,  each 
of  which  had  its  distinct  government;  but  still  the  temple 
with  its  priesthood  was  the  centre  of  unity  ;  and  although  it 
is  obvious  that  there  were  several  Christian  congregations  in 
the  larger  cities,  yet  in  Scripture  we  always  read  not  of 
churches,  but  the  Church.  Take  the  case  of  Jerusalem,  for 
instance  ;  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  visited  that  city,  there 
must  have  been  a  much  larger  number  of  Christians  than  could 
have  assembled  in  any  one  place,  yet  we  find  that,  however 
many  congregations  there  may  have  been,  there  was  but  one 
Church;  and  though  there  were  many  e/cZcr*,  there  was  but 
one  president  or  bishop.  No  one  will  say  that  we  are  told  of 
iny  such  thing  as  an  organized  presbytery  in  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  ablest,  and  soundest  wri- 
ters on  the  subject,  that  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  was  model- 
ed from  the  temple^  and,  that  that  Church  served  as  the'model 
for  all  others  .Nevertheless,  Dr.  M.  perseveres  in  saying  that: 
*'It  is  evident  on  the  slightest  inspection  of  the  New  Testament 
history,  that  the  names  and  functions  of  the  church  officers 
appointed  by  the  apostles,  were  derived,  not  from  the  temple, 
but  from  the  synagogue"  ! 

Again.  "It  is  explicitly  granted,  by  our  Episcopal  breth- 
ren themselves,  that  in  the  New  Testament,  the  titles  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  were  used  interchangeably,  to  designate  the 
same  office,  and  that  the  names  were  then  common."  True, 
but  they  also  assert,  and  prove,  moreover,  that  there  was  a 
superior  order  c&Ued  Ajiostles,  which  had  jurisdiction  over  the 
Bishops  or  Presbyters^  and  thatthe  names  of  these  officers  were 
subsequently  changed;  of  which  I  have  given  evidence,  in  the 
former  part  of  this  Letter. 

Again,     "It  is  manifest,  that  Tiinothy  received  his  designa> 


47 

tioD  to  the  sacred  office  "by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery.^  It  cannot  be  manifest  that  he  was  so  designated 
by  their  hands  only,  while  such  a  passage  remains  as  that  in 
Paul's  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  1.6.  '•'Stir  up  the  gift  of  God 
which  is  in  thee,  by  the  laying  on  of  my  hands.^'  This  passage 
must  first  be  obliterated  from  our  Bibles. 

"It  is  well  known,"  says  Dr.  M.  that,  "at  the  era  of  the  Re- 
formation, the  leaders  of  the  church  of  England  stood  alone, 
in  reforming  their  church  upon  prelatical  (i.  e.  Episcopal)  prin- 
ciples."*    Indeed  1   I  have  hitherto  supposed,  and  certainly  all 


*  Dr.  M.  gives  a  very  unjust  account  of  "the  principles  which  formed 
the  dividing  lines  between  the  Puritans  of  England,  and  the  Prelates  and 
others  by  whom  the  Reformed  church  was  organized  in  that  land."  He 
says  that  "the  Puritans  CDntendedJthat  the  Bible  was  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  that  it  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  standard  of 
church  government  and  discipline  as  well  as  of  doctrine  etc., -But  the  Bish- 
ops and  court  clergy — [by  which  courteous  appellation  he  means  ^he 
Episcopalians] — openly  maintained  that  the  Scriptures  were  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  only  standard  of  church  government  and  discipline:  that 
the  Fathers  and  tl>e  early  councils  were  to  be  united  with  them  as  the 
rule;  that  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  left  the  whole  matter  of  church 
order  to  be  accommodated  to  the  discretion  of  the  civil  magistrate,  etc." 
Every  intelligent  reader  of  the  history  of  that  period  will  at  once  perceive 
the  manifest  injustice  of  this  statement.  The  Puritans  contended  "that 
God  had  given  in  the  Scriptures,  a  complete  and  unchangeable  form, 
for  the  government  both  of  Church  and  State.^^  "The  Chur<ch,"  said 
Cartwright,  their  great  leader,  "wherein  any  magistrate,  king,  or  empe- 
ror, is  a  member,  is  divided  into  some  that  are  to  govern,  as  pastors, 
doctors,  and  elders,  and  into  such  as  are  to  obcij,  as  magistrates  of  all 
sorts,  and  the  people." — The  Episcopalians  contended,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  there  is  not,  in  Scripture,  any  detailed  and  prescribed  system  of 
church  government,  but  that  the  form  of  church  government,  may  differ, 
and  has  differed,  in  different  ages,  and  countries,  without  affecting  the  faith, 
or  the  ministry  of  the  gospel ;  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians,  in 
«ivil  matters,  to  submit  to  the  powers  that  be,  as  ordained  of  God.  Epis- 
copalians still  distinguish  between  the  essential  character  of  the  ministry 
in  three  orders.  Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  and  church  govern- 
ment; they  hold  the  former  to  be  a  divine  institution,  but  church  govern- 


48 

history  confirms  the  supposition,  that  the  churches  of  Den- 
mark and  Sweden  were  also  reformed  upon  Episcopal  princi- 
ples.    Whatever  may  be  said  of  Knox,  and  some  others  whom 


ment  with  these  may  comprise  other  offices, — as  in  this  country,  wardens 
and  vestrymen  for  attending  to  the  temporal  business  of  the  Church: — It 
may  comprise  also  the  mode  by  which  ministers  are  vested  with  juris- 
diction; and  the  particular  organization  of  her  legislative,  executive  and 
judiciary  powers.  As  these  latter  things  are  left  to  human  expediency,  and 
may  be  ordered  diiFerently  in  different  churches,  they  do  not  contend, 
strictly  speaking,  for  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopal  governme7it.  The 
Presbyterian  church  in  this  country,  carries  this  subject  mucn  fariher  than 
the  Episcopal,  for  it  asserts  in  its  Form  of  Government,  that;  "the  char- 
acter, qualifications,  and  authority  of  church  officers  are  laid  down  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  well  as  the  proper  method  of  their  investiture  and 
institution,"  and  reference  is  u)ade  to  Scripture  for  the  purpose  of  sus- 
taining its  claim  to  divine  right  for  its  vhole  system  of  government,  in  all 
its  parts,  officers,  presbyters,  synods,  etc.  etc. 

It  may  be  well  to  add  here,  to  prevent  misunderstanding,  that  by  di- 
vine rights  or  appointment^  we  do  not  mean  an  express  command  of 
God,  or  of  our  blessed  Saviour;  nor,  in  this  sense,  can  the  Christian  fe'ab- 
bath,  nor  infant  baptism,  nor  the  canon  of  Scripture,  be  said  to  haA'e  the 
sanction  of  divine  institution ;  but  that  may  be  said  to  be  divinely  insti- 
tuted which  is  delivered  by  men  divinely  inspired;  as  are  all  the  preceptg 
and  ordinances  which  we  have  received  from  the  prophets  and  apostles 
by  divine  inspiration ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  whatever  is  founded 
upon  a  divine  commission,  as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments.  It  must  be  conceded,  on  all  sides,  that  the 
Christian  ministry  is  in  these  two  last  senses  a  divine  institution,  and  this 
is  all  we  claim  for  Episcopacy. 

Calamy,  inhis  Life  of  Baxter,  vol.  i.  p.  141,  says  that  the  Presbyteriao 
ministers  who  met  at  Sion  college  in  1660,  on  the  restoration  of  Charles 
II.,  after  much  deliberation,  presented  to  the  king  a  paper  in  which  *'they 
ofl^ered  to  allow  of  the  true  ancient  primitive  presidency  [Episcopacy] 
in  the  Church,  with  a  due  mixture  of  presbyters" — and  that  for  reform- 
ing existing  evils  "they  proposed  Bishop  Usher's  Reduction  of  Episcopa- 
cy." Neal  also  mentions  the  same  circumstance.  He  says,  (  Hist,  of 
the  Puritans,  vol.  ii.  p.  567.)  "the  well  meaning  presbyterians"  offered 
as  a  plan  of  accommodation  with  the  Episcopalians,  Archbishop  Usher's 
mode  of  primitive  Episcopacy.  Dr.  Mason,  in  his  Plea  for  Sacramtn- 


49 

he  names,  it  is  a  fact,  which  any  reader  of  ecclesiastical  histo- 
ry may  verify,  that  Lsither,  Melancthoo,  and  Bucer  did  not 
interpret  the  New  Testanrieat  as  plainly  teaching  Ihe  doc- 
trine of  parity,  nor  "regard  every  kind  of  imparity  in  the  gos- 
pel ministry  as  the  result  of  human  contrivance,  and  not  of 
divine  appointment."  Lulher  himself  declared  that  '■^'d  the 
popish  bishops  would  cease  to  persecute  the  gospel,  we  would 
acknowledge  them  as  our  Fathers,  and  willingly  obey  their 
authority,  which  we  Jiad  supported  by  the  word  of  God:'*^^  and 
Melancthon,  in  the  Apology  for  the  Augustan  Confession,  says, 
'*I  would  to  God  it  lay  in  me  to  restore  the  government  of 
bishops."  And  Mosheim  says  ;  f  '"The  internal  government 
of  the  Lutheran  Church   seems  equally  removed  from  episco- 


al  Communion ,  p.  275,  in  describing  this  ^?(zn,  says,  "its  chief  feature 
is,  that,  without  destroying  the  distinctive  titles  of  archbishop,  bishop, 
and  presbyter,  as  known  in  England,  they  [the  presbyters]  might  be 
conjoined  in  the  government  of  the  Church;  a  bishop  being  perpetual 
president  in  the  ecclesiastical  assemblies  made  up  of  presbyters."  It  is  a 
curious  incident  in  the  history  of  parties,  that  while  this  plan  of  Usher's^ 
which  has  been,  at  times,  so  much  lauded  by  anti-episcopalians,  and 
which  would  have  satisfied  the  English  loell  rneaninj  presbyterians,  al- 
thoaghit  certainly  would  have  been  a  reduction  of  English  Episcopacy  as 
it  then  stood,  takes  undeniably  higher  ground  in  regard  to  government 
than  the  Episcopal  church  of  this  country.  Usher's  plan  excluded  from  the 
government  of  the  clm.-ch  all  but  bishops  and  presbyters.  Neither  dea- 
con, nor  layman,  would  have  bean  allowed  to  interfere  or  associate  with 
them,  and  the  decrees  of  such  synods  might  have  been  expected  to  be 
as  absolute  and  as.  tyrannical  as  those  of  any  bishop  in  Christendom. 
Oligarchies  have  surely  been  found  to  be  as  oppressive  to  the  rights  of 
the  governed,  as  any  monarchy  or  despotism  that  ever  existed.  The 
American  Episcopal  Church  contending  for  divine  right  simply  for  it 
three  orders  of  ministers,  allows  each  of  those  orders,  and  the  whole  body 
of  the  laity  by  delegates  of  their  own  annual  choice,  to  share  in  its  gov- 
ernment. Its  bishops,  who  constitute,  severally,  in  their  own  dioceses, 
its  executive,  are  bound  by  written  law,  and  can  no  more  exercise 
power  beyond  that  law  than  the  humblest  member  of  the  flock. 

*  See  How's  Vindication,  p-  176.     t  Hist.  cent.  xvi.  part  2.  chap.  1. 
0eet.  4. 


50 

pacy,  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  prebyterianism  on  the  other; 
if  we  except  the  kingdoms  of  Sweden  and  Denmark,  who  re- 
tain the  form  of  government  (episcopal)  which  preceded  the 
Reformation,  purged  indeed  from  the  abuses  and  superstitions 
that  rendered  it  so  odious." 

In  reference  to  Dr.  M's.  assertion  that  Episcopalians  also 
''depart  from  the  apostolic  mode  in  respect  to  the  deacon's 
office,"  perhaps  enough  has  been  said  in  the  previous  pages  of 
this  Letter.  One  circumstance  only  deserves  noticehere.  Dr. 
Miller  is  put  to  much  difficulty  to  reconcile  the  fact  of  Philip, 
the  deacon,  "being  found  preaching  and  baptising  in  Samaria 
and  other  places,"  with  the  character,  which  he  chooses  to 
consider  as  properly  belonging  to  the  office  of  deacon.  In 
this  situation,  he  imagines,  without  the  slightest  ground  for  it, 
that  Philip  must  have  received  ordination  to  the  presbytery; 
"for,"  he  absurdly  asks,  "are  not  cases  frequently  occurring  in 
the  presbyterian  church,  in  which  youug  men,  after  serving  a 
year  or  two  as  deacons,  or  ruling  elders,  are  set  apart  as  min- 
isters of  the  gospel!"  True,  Philip  is  called  an  Evangelist.  But 
Evangelists  were  not  an  order:  deacons  might  be  such.  Is  it 
not  strange,  after  so  much  said  of  the  inability  of  his  Episco- 
pal brethren  to  produce  direct  testimony  from  Scripture — after 
asserting  that  their  testimony  was  only  indirect  and  remotely  in- 
ferentiaV^ — that  Dr.  M.  should  hazard  a  mere,  literal,  wholly 
unsupported,  conjecture,  as  conclusive  testimony!  Letus  try 
him  with  his  own  "regular  syllogism,"  which  he  made  for  the 
benefit  of  Episcopalians,  in  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus, 
in  the  former  part  of  this  chapter.  "None  but  presbyters  can 
preach  and  baptise;  but  Philip  preached  and  baptized;  there- 
fore Philip  must  have  been  a  presbyter!"  But,  as  Dr.  M.  said 
in  the  former  case,  "is  not  the  very  thing  to  be  proved;" 
viz:  that  deacons  could  not  preach  and  baptise  "here  taken 
for  granted]  Can  there  be  a  more  gross  begging  of  the  whole 
question  than  tlys  argument  exemplifies^" — '^Untilit  he  prov- 
ed that  Philip  preached  and  baptized  as  adeacon!" — why,  it  is 
most  abundantly  proved,  not  by  indirect  and  remote,  but  by  the 
direct  testimony  of  Scripture,  that  he  was  ordained  a  deacon — 
that  he  did  preach  and  baptise,  and  that  he  is  called  at  the  same 


51 

time  a  deacon  and  evnn^elist: — '^Ph\\\p  the  evangelist,  one  of  the 
seven'''  (Acts  xxi.  8.)  What  other  proof  does  Dr.  M.  desire? 
Much,  it  AvoLild  seem;  for  he  now  quotes — reckless  of  his  owa 
denunciation  of  all  such  testimony,  in  the  former  part  of  this 
chapter, — Origen,  and  Ambrose,  and  Chrysostom,  and  even  the 
apostolical  constitutions ^  as  testimony  in  relation  to  the  Scrip- 
ture office  of  deacon!  The  actual  perusal  of  his  statements, 
alone,  can  make  it  credible,  that  he  has  resorted  to  such  a 
manifest  inversion  of  his  own  declared  principles! 

But  allow  me  to  introduce  here  another  brief  extract  from 
Mr.  Smith's  History  of  the  Church;  in  relation  to  the  office  of 
deacon.  Belonging  himself  to  a  religious  body,  which,  like 
that  of  which  Dr.  Miller  is  a  member,  takes  a  different  view  of 
the  duties  of  this  office,  from  that  which  is  taken  by  the 
Episcopal  church,  yet  he  has  regarded  truth,  as  more  valuable 
than  a  mere  party  or  sectarian  triumph,  and  has  given,  accord- 
ingly, such  an  account,  as  is  consistent  alike  with  Scripture, 
and  the  uniform  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  history. 

"An  inferior  order  of  ministers,  called  deacons,  were  ap- 
pointed from  the  first  institution  of  the  Church,  whose  office  it 
was  to  assist  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  to 
carry  the  elements  to  the  sick  and  absent,  to  receive  the  ob- 
lations of  the  people,  to  rebuke  those  who  behaved  irreverent- 
ly during  divine  service,  to  relieve  the  distressed,  and  to  watch 
over  the  conduct  of  the  people.  In  some  churches  they  also 
read  the  Gospels,  and  were  allowed  to  baptise  and  to  preach. 
The  number  of  these  ministers  was  not  limited,  but  was  gen- 
erally in  proportion  to  the  wants  of  the  Church.  Some,  how- 
ever, after  the  example  of  t|je  church  at  Jerusalem,  confined 
their  number  to  seven;  and  the  church  of  Rom9  thought  this  rule 
so  obligatory,  that,  when  the  number  of  presbyters  amounted 
to  forty-sis,  that  of  the  deacons  was  limited  to  seven."    p.  49. 

Dr.  Miller  tells  us  in  this  fourth  chapter,  that  the  burthen  of 
proof  in  relation  to  Episcopacy,  rests  Aviih  Episcopalians.  If 
this  were  admitted  to  be  just,  with  reference  to  the  world  at 
large,  yet  upon  what  grounds  can  it  be  thrown  upon  us, 
with  reference  to  Presbyterians'?  They  were  challenged,  more 
than  one  hundred    and  fifty  years  ago^  in  that  immortal  work 


52 

of  Hooker,  which,  at  this  day,  is  found  upon  the  desk  of  every 
divine,  to  show  aa  instance  in  the  whole  world,  of  a  churcli 
governed  otherwise  than  episcopally,  from  the  apostles'  times 
to  the  Reformation,  and  the  fact  yet  remains  to  be  shown! 
There  is  no  probability  that  such  a  fact  ever  can  be  shown. 
Episcopalians  have  a  right  to  take  the  ground, — that,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Scriptures,  on  which  they  found  all  their  doctrines, 
and  all  their  hopes, — as  an  existing  institution,  through  its 
whole  period  claimed  to  be  co-existent  with  Christianity, 
(whose  enemies,  and  in  later  times  they  have  not  been  iew , 
have  never  yet  been  able  to  agree  on  any  period  subsequent 
to  the  apostles  for  its  origin,)  they  have  the  presumption  in  their 
favor,  and  such  a  pre-occupation  of  the  ground,  as  that  Episco- 
pacy must  stand  good,  till  some  suflSicient  reason  is  adduced 
against  it;  in  short,  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  not  with  us, 
but  with  our  adversaries.* 

A  brief  recapitulation,  or  arrangement  of  some  of  Dr.  Mil- 
ler's propositions  will  close  what  I  have  to  say  at  this  time.    If 
a  ^y  one  should  think  it  diflScult  to  reconcile  these  propositions, 
as  they  are  here  presented,  I  beg  it  may  be  remembered,  that 
'a  9  fault  is  not  mine.     I  believe  they  faithfully  represent  his 
:-u  n  declarations.      The  references  are  to  the  pages  of  this 
'ecter. 
I.  The  apostolical  office  was  not  successive  (p.  21.) — the  pres- 
ers  succeeded  in  the  place  of  the  bench  of  the  apostles  (p. 
) —Presbyterian  ruling  elders  are   such  presbyters  (p.  36.) 
U  who  are  empowered  to  preach  the  gospel  and  administer 
s  icramental  seals  are  successors  of  the  apostles,  (p.  36.) 
The  writings  of  Ignatius  are  unworthy  of  confidence  as 
e  works  (p.  6.) — they  are  in  the  main,  the  real  works  of 
'isr  whose  name  they  bear  (p.  6.) — agtiin,  they  are  un- 
of  confidence  (p.  6.) — contain  a  graphic  description  of 
Tiauism  as  existing  in  all  the  churches  he  addresses. 

^oret  lived  four  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age,  and 
ne  not  to  be  trusted  as  to  a  fact  which  occurred  dur- 

'laiely^s  Rhetoric,  p.  79. 


53 

ing  that  age  (p.  19.) — the  learned  Jerome,  and  Origen,  and  Au- 
gustine, and  Ambrose,  and  Cbrysostom,  and  the  apostolical-con- 
stitutions, of  about  the  same  time;  and  Dr.  Barrow  sixteen  cen- 
uries  after,  are  authorities  for  facts  during  the  apostolic  age 
p.  51   &D  16.) 

4.  Episcopalians  do  not  pretend  to  quote  a  single  passage 
of  Scripture  which  declares  in  so  many  words,  in  favor  of 
their  claim  (p.  11.) — whoever  expects  to  find  any  formal  or 
explicit  declarations  on  the  subject  of  the  ministry  delivered 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  will  be  disappointed — the  Scriptures 
present  no  formal  or  explicit  declarations  on  the  subject,  (p. 
11.) 

5.  The  advocates  of  Episcopacy  refer  us  to  no  passages  of 
Scripture  asserting  or  even  hinting  that  diocesan  bishops  suc- 
ceed the  apostles  in  the  appropriate  powers  and  pre-eminence 
of  the  apostolic  character  (p.  7.) — Episcopalians  commonly 
urge  from  Scripture  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  and 
Titus  of  Crete, — that  the  angels  addressed  in  the  epistles  to  the 
seven  churches,  were  bishops, — that  the  apostle  James  was 
bishop  of  Jerusalem; — that  the  New  Testament  holds  forth  as 
existing  in  the  apostolic  church,  and  intended  to  be  perpetual, 
an  order  of  men  superior  to  presbyters — they  would  persuade 
us  not  only  that  the  New  Testament  bears  them  out  in  main- 
taining the  actual  existence  of  such  an  order  in  the  apostolic 
church,  but  also  that  it  warrants  them  in  contending  for  it  as 
perpetually  and  indispensably  binding,     p.  23  &c. 

6.  No  testimony  of  the  Fatiiers  exists  which  unequivocally 
represents  Episcopacy  as  existing  within  fifty  years  from  the 
last  apostle,  (p.  39.) — Jerome  declares  it  was  brought  in  at  the 
time  when  jealousies  began  among  the  presbyters  of  Corinth 
in  the  absence  of  St.  Paul.  (p.  31.) 

I  have  referred  to  the  previous  pa<^es  of  this  Letter  for  such 
passages  as  I  have  found  occasion  to  quote  in  my  replies.  One 
or  two  of  them,  which  I  have  not  previously  quoted,  you  can 
find,  without  difficulty,  on  examining  your  own  columns. 

I  have  been  led  to  extend  this  letter,  only  intended  origin- 
ally to  comprise  a  few  paragraphs,  to  a  considerable  length. 
It  is  time  I  should  bring  it  to  a  close. 


54 

i  trust,  however  much  I  may  have  been  tempted  by  the 
recklessness  of  Dr.  Miller's  assertions  and  invective,  to  depart 
from  my  avowed  design  of  acting  on  the  defensive  only,  I  shall 
be  found  to  have  strictly  adhered  to  it.  I  have  been  anxious 
only  to  vindicate  the  church  of  which  I  am  a  member,  from 
the  sweeping  reproach,  which  you  have  assisted  Dr.  M.  in  at- 
tempting to  fix  upon  her,  of  being  utterly  destitute  of  Scriptur- 
al warrant  for  her  lovg  established  institutions.  I  trust,  that 
the  effort  will  not  have  been  made  in  vain.  What  advantage 
Dr.  Miller's  oft  repealed  assaults  upon  his  "Episcopal  breth- 
ren" as  he  calls  them,  may  have  brought  to  your  own  church, 
I  have  no  means  of  knowing,  but  I  can  safely  declare,  that 
there  is,  probably,  no  man  living,  who  has  been  the  means  of 
attaching  so  many  individuals  to  the  Episcopal  church,  as  Dr. 
M.:  not  intentionally — I  fully  acquit  him  of  that  charge — 
but  indirectly.  His  writings  have  undeniably  led  more  per* 
sons  to  investigate  the  subject  of  the  ministry,  than  those  of 
any  other  person  of  our  day.  I  freely  state  the  fact,  that  there 
are  annually  admitted  to  the  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  church 
not  a  few  persons  whose  religious  education  was  acquired  else- 
where. No  small  portion  of  the  present  ministers  of  the  Episcopal 
Church;  including  four  of  her  present  bishops,  were  educated 
in  other  denominations,  and  have  attached  themselves  to  her 
from  convictions  formed  in  manhood,  and  after  an  examina- 
tion of  the  points  of  controversy  connected  with  ecclesias- 
tical history.  Some  of  these  passed  through  the  halls  of  the 
seminary,  where  Dr.  Miller  himself  dogmatizes, — they  heard 
his  arguments  from  his  own  lips,  and  were  led  by  the 
manifestations  of  his  feelings,  similar  to  those  of  which  I 
have  spoken  in  this  Letter,  to  examine  the  subject,  fully  and 
deliberately,  for  themselves.  We  have  among  us  some,  who 
had  even  exercised  the  ministry  elsewhere,  for  longer  or 
shorter  periods,  and  who  upon  th.eir  examination  of  this  sub- 
ject, were  induced  to  change  their  connexions  and  eccle- 
siastical allegiance.  Of  the  eleven  ministers  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  now  in  this  State^  eight  have  been  led  by  their 
convictions,  at  the  sacrifice  of  some  feeling,  so  far  to  separate 
from  their  early   connexions,  as  to  cast  in  their  lot  among  us* 


55 

I  do  not  mention  these  facts  as  cause  of  triumph  ;  the  subject 
is  unfit  for  the  manifestation  of  such  a  feeling;  but  to  show 
that  we  do  not  think  ourselves  likely  to  lose  ground,  even  by 
the  vt'idest  possible  discussion  of  the  subject. 

And  now  allow  me,  Messrs,  Editors,  to  ask  of  you  a  candid 
consideration  of  what  I  have  now  felt  it  my  duty  to  lay  be- 
fore you.  I  have  not  written  in  an  angry  or  sectarian  spirit,^ 
and  I  trust  that  what  I  have  written  may  not  excite  any  such 
spirit  in  others.  May  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  overrule 
all  our  differences  for  its  advancement,  and  for  setting  forward 
the  salvation  of  all  men. 

AN  EPISCOPALIAN. 

June  12th,  1835. 


P,  S.  After  a  considerable  portion  of  the  above  Letter  wag  written,  a 
friend  put  into  my  hands,  a  copy  of  the  work  of  Dr.  Miller,  the  repub- 
lication of  the  fourth  cl  apter  of  which  has  called  forth  these  strictures.  A 
single  glance  over  its  pages  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  it  fully  sustains  the 
allegation  of  Dr.  Miller's  motives  made  by  me  on  page  4th  of  this  Letter. 
To  make  no  reference  to  the  first  three  chapters,  or  to  what  has  been  said 
above  of  the  fourth  chapter,  the  following  heads  of  the  fifth,  will  be 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  aggressive  character  of  the  whole.  This- 
chapter,  though  bearing  the  title  of  "the  worship  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,"  is  divided  into  sections  with  the  following  titles, — Presbyterians 
REJECT  prescribed  Liturgies: — do  not  observe  holy  days: — reject 
godfathers  and  godmothers  in  baptism: — the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism: 
— the  rite  of  confirmation: — kneeling  at  the  Lord's  supper: — admin- 
istering the  Lord's  supper  in  private: — bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus: — 
reading  the  apocryphal  books  in  public  worship.  As,  under  all  these 
heads,  the  burden  of  reference  and  of  defence,  is  thrown  upon  the  Epis- 
copal church,  it  would  seem  that  Dr.  Miller  supposes  thatPresbyterianism, 
is  only  to  be  sustained  by  the  destruction  of  the  Episcopal  church.  His 
determination  seems  to  hi  that  of  "the  children  of  Edom  in  the  day  of 
Jerusalem,  who  said.  Rase  it,  rase  it,  even  to  the  foundation  thereof." 
It  is  not  easy  to  conceive  why  the  Editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian, 
themselves  connected  with  one  of  the  most  influential  denominations  in 
this  region  of  country,  should  find  it  needful  to  join  in  such  a  warfare  a- 
gainst  a  mere  handful — comparatively — of  Episcopalians.  They  seem, 
however,  disposed  to  avail  themselves  thoroughly  of  Dr.  Miller's  wea~ 


56 

pons,  and  to  iiUow  their  paper  to  be  the  vehicle  of  gross  imputations  up- 
on the  principles  and  practices  of  those,  who,  at  the  same  time,  they 
call  their  "Episcopal  brethren!"  Anxious  only  for  truth,  when  they 
shall  have  accomplished  their  weekly  task  of  giving  circulation  to  Dr. 
Miller's  charitable  labors,  I  may  find  it  convenient  to  trouble  them  witk 
another  letter. 


LETTER 

TO    THE   MEMBERS    OF    THE 

PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL   CHURCH, 

IN  NASHVILLE; 

CONTAINING    A   REPLY    TO  A   PUBLICATION    OF   THE 

REV.  SAiMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 


[N  THE  AMERICAN  PRESBYTERIAN    OF  SEPTEMBER  3d. 
1835,  AND    IN   SOME   OTHER   PAPERS. 


BY  GEORGE  V^ELLER,    D.  D. 

RECTOR  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH,  NASHVILLE. 


NASHVILLE: 

PRINTED  BT  S.   NYE  &  CO. 


1836. 


A  LETTER 


To  the  mnnbcr.s'   of  the  Proicstant  Episcopal   Ckurch,  in 
Nashville. 


Dear  Brethren — An  article  or  communication  of  unusual 
length  for  the  mode  of  publication,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel 
Miller,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton ,  New  Jersey,  ap- 
peared in  the  American  Presbyterian  of  this  City,  on  the 
3d  of  September  last,  and  since,  I  learn,  in  some  other  re- 
ligious papers, — to  which  I  think  it  necessary  in  this  man- 
ner to  call  your  attention, 

I  had  at  first  contemplated  only  a  brief  reply  to  Dr.  Mil- 
ler's animadversions  upon  our  church  and  myself,  through 
the  columns  of  the  same  paper  in  which  Dr.  Miller's  commu- 
liiration  was  published.  Permission  to  do  this,  was,  how- 
ever, discourteously  refused  by  the  Editors  of  the  American 
Presbyterian,  on  the  alleged  ground  that  they  did  ''not  know 
how  far  the  proposed  reply  would  be  respectful  to  Dr.  Mil- 
ler or  themselves!'''^  As  the  existing  controversy,  in  our  vi- 
cinity, according  to  their  own  admission,  as  will  be  seen  in 
the  sequel,  had  been  commenced  by  themselves,  it  would 
seem  that  civility,  apart  from  justice  and  christian  charity, 
would  have  allowed  me  the  use  of  those  columns,  through 
which,  alone,  my  defence  against  accusations  of  a  personal 


and  serious  nature,  could  reach  those  before  whom  those  ac- 
cusations had  been  fully  spread.  I  must,  however,  do  the 
editors  the  justice  of  believing,  that  they  may  have  conceived 
it  difficult  for  me  to  make  any  suitable  reply  to  Dr.  Miller's 
numerous  personalities,  which  should  be  respectful  to  Mm 
without  departing  from  the  respect  which  I  owed  to  myself. 

You  are,  of  course,  aware,  that  a  work  written  by  Dr. 
Miller,  and  containing  many  uncharitable,  unjust,  and  even 
false,  imputations  upon  the  principles  and  practices  of  our 
beloved  church,  had  been  unnecessarily  brought  before  this, 
community,  by  the  Editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian 
through  the  columns  of  their  paper  during  many  successive 
weeks,  to  the  disturbance  of  our  peace,  and  leading  to  the 
formation,  with  those  who  should  give  credit  to  Dr.  Miller's 
statements,  of  very  unfavorable  opinions,  in  relation  to  our 
religious  principles,  practices,  and  character. 

It  was  impossible  that  a  publication  of  this  nature,  and  un- 
der these  circumstances,  could  have  been  passed  by  unno- 
ticed by  us,  consistently  with  self  respect,  or  with  the  desire 
to  obtain  and  hold  the  respect  of  the  community  around  us. 
]f  the  allegations  thus  applied  directly  to  us  and  our  princi- 
ples by  those  editors  were  true,  it  would  only  have  been  an 
honest  act  in  the  community  to  deprive  us  of  their  confidence, 
and  hold  us  up  to  the  world  as  a  reproach  upon  the  Gospel. 
A  writer,  believed  to  be  one  of  the  editors  of  the  American 
Preshyterian,  did  indeed  subsequently  endeavor  to  do  this 
through  the  columns  of  that  paper,  in  an  article  evincing  lit- 
tle else  than  ignorance  and  malignity,  with  the  signature  of 
A  Catholic. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances,  that,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  some  among  you,  1  wrote  hastily,  for  as  you  know 
I  have  little  leisure  for  such  employment,  a  Letter  to  the  Edi- 
tors of  the  American  Presbyterian,  in  which  I  examined, 
censured,  and,  as  is  believed,  refuted,  so  much  of  Dr.  Miller's 


allegations  as  related  to  the  episcopal  constitution  of  the 
christian  ministry. 

To  leave  no  doubt  upon  the  minds  of  their  readers,  that 
these  editors  were  desirous  to  produce  an  unfavorable  im- 
pression on  the  public  mind,  in  relation  to  our  principles  and 
practice;  and  of  their  disposition  to  begin  a  controversy,  the 
effectf:  of  which  they  have  since  shown  an  unequivocal  de- 
sire to  avoid,  they  distinctly  admitted  in  their  paper  of  July 
9th,  that  such  was  their  object.  At  least  their  language 
was  so  understood  both  here  and  elsewhere.  They  certainly 
endeavored,  with  far  less  knowledge  of  our  institutions  than 
Dr.  Miller  has  shown,  to  strengthen  his  statements  by  very 
gross  misrepresentations  of  our  church,  in  their  papers  of 
July  9th  and  23d  last;  which,  though  entirely  disproved  to 
them,  they  have  not  had  the  magnanimity  to  retract. 

My  Letter  to  the  Editors  met  with  no  reply  from  them. 
It  is  understood  that  a  copy  was  sent  to  Dr.  Miller,  with  a 
request  that  he  would  come  to  their  aid.  More  compassion- 
ate than  Hercules  in  the  fable,  he  does  not  seem  even  to  have 
asked  of  them  to  put  their  own  shoulders  to  the  wheel,  but 
forthwith  undertook,  with  characteristic  alacrity,  the  whole 
labor.  The  result  of  his  efforts  was  the  communication 
above  referred  to,  in  the  American  Presbyterian  of  Septem- 
ber 3d,  and    which  I  now  propose  to  examine. 

Dr.  Miller  commences  his  communication  by  a  palpable 
misrepresentation.  He  says  that  I  "fee-o-m  by  representing 
him  as  entirely  the  aggressor  in  all  that  he  has  written  on 
the  episcopal  controversy  for  twenty  years  past,  as  well  as 
recently."  He  says  that  I  speak  othim  "as  guilty  of  an 
'unprovoked  assault,''  on  the  Episcopal  Church;  as  having 
"cherished  a  long,  continued  and  vehement  animosity  towards 
it."  Any  man  who  has  perused  the  Letter  of  "a/i  Episco- 
palian'^'' may  readily  perceive  how  far  this  statement  varies 
from  the  fact.  That  I  asserted  his  long  continued  and  ve- 
1* 


*  6 

hement  animosity  to  the  Episcopal  Church  is  true,  and  I  am 
amazed  that  he  would  even  seem  to  deny  a  fact,  so  well  known 
to  all  who  are  at  all  acquainted  with  his  history.  I  now  delib- 
erately repeat  it,  and  shall,  I  think,  before  I  close  these  stric- 
tures, make  it  abundantly  evident  to  all  who  may  doubt  it. 
But  a  reference  to  the  Letter  p.  4.  will  show  that  it  was  the 
Editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian  whom  I  accused  of 
the  unprovoked  assault,  because  while  Episcopalians  were 
few  in  number  and  living  in  peace  by  their  side,  they  had 
chosen  to  avail  themselves  of  Dr.  Miller's  labors  to  misrep- 
resent our  principles,  and  deny  our  claims  to  scriptural 
sanction  for  them;  and,  if  I  understand  the  language  of 
these  Editors  in  their  paper  of  July  9th  last,  they  distinct- 
ly admit  that  it  was  an  assault  on  their  part.  They  sup- 
pose some  one  to  ask  the  question,  "why  have  we  republished 
Dr.  M"'s.  tract  in  which  the  validity  of  Episcopacy  is  ques- 
tioned and  impugned  ?"  Their  chief  object,  they  reply,  was 
to  show  that  Presbyterians  stood  on  as  good  ground  as  others; 
and  the  next,  that  Episcopalians  hold  some  opinions  which 
they  thought  it  necessary  to  assail.  I  repeat  that  the  re- 
publication of  Dr.  Miller's  Tract  was,  on  the  part  of  these 
Editors,  an  unprovoked  assault  upon  their  Episcopal  breth- 
ren. 

But  in  what  part  of  the  Letter  is  Dr.  M.  charged  with  being 
entirely  the  aggressor  in  all  that  he  has  written  on  this  con- 
troversy during  the  twenty  years  past?  I  am  unable  to 
find  any  such  passage.  There  is  no  such  assertion  in  it. 
I  do  indeed  charge  him  with  being  the  aggressor  in  this 
Tract;  and  I  refer  to  the  contents  of  the  Tract  itself  to  prove 
my  charge.  The  following  passage  occurs,  not  as  he  states, 
at  the  beginning,  but  in  the  postscript  of  the  Letter. 

"To  make  no  reference  to  the  first  three  chapters  (of  Dr.  Miller's 
Tract,)  or  to  what  has  been  said  above  of  the  fourth  chapter,  the  fol- 
lowiog  heads  of  the  fifth,  will  be  sufficient  evidence  of  the  ▲ggiie»- 


81 VE  character  of  the  whole.  This  chapter,  though  bearing  the 
title  of  "the  worship  of  the  Presbyterian  church,"  is  divided  into 
sections  with  the  following  titles, — Presbyterians  reject  i^rescri- 
bed  Liturgies: — do  not  observe  holy  days: — reject  godfathers 
and  godmothers  in  baptism: — the  sign  of  the  cross  in  bap- 
tism:— the  rite  of  confirmation: — kneeling  at  the  Lord's  sup- 
per:— administering  the  Lord^s  supper  in  private: — bowing 
at  the  na7ne  of  Jesits: — reading  the  apocryphal  books  in  pub- 
lic worship.  As,  under  all  these  heads,  the  burden  of  reference 
and  of  defence,  is  thrown  upon  the  Episcopal  church,  it  would  seenn 
that  Dr.  Miller  supposes  that  Presbytorianism  is  only  to  be  sustained 
by  the  destruction  of  the  Episcopal  church." 

In  this  short  paragraph  then,  the  second  in  his  communi- 
cation, Dr.  M.  has  made  no  less  than  three  misrepresenta- 
tions. 

1st.  I  did  not  charge  him  with  an  unprovoked  assault  on 
the  Episcopal  church,  but  the  editors  of  the  American  Pres- 
byterian. 

2d.  1  did  woi  charge  him  "with  being  entirely  the  ag- 
gressor in  all  that  he  had  written  on  the  Episcopal  contro- 
versy for  twentv  years  past." 

3d.  And  though  I  didasserl,  that  his  Tract  was  aggressive, 
it  was  not  in  the  beginning  of  ray  Letter,  but  in  the  post- 
script. 

The  purpose  for  which  Dr.  M.  charges  me  with  represen 
ting  him  as  entirely  the  aggressor  in  all  that  he  has  written 
on  the  Episcopal  controversy  for  twenty  years  past,  is,  to  en- 
able him  to  make  an  attempt  to  justify  his  course  of  opposi- 
tion to  our  beloved  church  during  that  long  period.  He  then 
makes  a  statement  of  his  views  of  the  cause  and  origin  of 
this  controversy,  from  about  the  year  1805;  which  is  such 
a  view  as  rione  but  a  man  prejudiced,  and  deeply  commit- 
ted in  its  character,  could  have  taken,  or  could  have  consen- 
ted to  lay  before  the  public.  It  furnishes  another  strong 
proof  of  his  persevering  animosity  towards  the  Episcopal 


church.  While  he  admits,  that,  if  I  have  read  the  books 
which  I  have  quoted  in  my  Letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Amer- 
ican Preshytej'ian,  I '^  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
facts;"  he  says,  that  his  statement  "cannot  be  disputed,  be- 
cause the  evidence  of  it  is  on  record,  and  open  to  the  exami- 
nation of  every  honest  enquirer."  It  is  true,  that  the  evi- 
dence is  on  record ;  and  that  I  am  acquainted  with  it,  not 
from  the  records  only,  but  also  from  the  fact,  that,  about  the 
time  of  the  commencement  of  his  assault  upon  the  Episco- 
pal church,  I  was  very  near  what  he  chooses  to  call  the  very 
focal  heat  of  this  controversy — felt  at  the  time,  as  a  young 
enquirer,  no  httle  interest  in  it — was  not  then  sufficiently- 
connected  with  either  party  to  be  divested  of  the  capacity 
for  impartial  observation, — and  yet  preserve  a  tolerably  fresh 
recollection  of  the  occurrences  of  the  time,  f  shall  now 
give,  with  occasional  references  to  "evidence  on  record,"  my 
view  of  these  matters,  which  will  be  seen  to  differ  essenti- 
ally from  Dr.  M's.  representation. 

"The  point  of  the  focal  heat"  was  the  city  of  New  York. 

Between  the  years  1803  and  1805,  the  late  Bishop  Ho- 
bart,  of  New  York,  then  a  young  man,  and  holding  the 
station  of  aijsistant  minister  of  Trinity  church,  in  that  city, 
revised  and  published  in  that  city,  two  works,  which  had 
long  before  been  published,  and  passed  through  many  edi- 
tions, in  England,  viz:  Stevens'  Essay  on  the  nature  and 
constitution  of  the  Christian  Church;  and  Nelson's  (Com- 
panion for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts.  To  these  he  added  a 
Companion  for  the  Altar.  These  books  were  published  by 
him  expressly  for  the  use  of  members  of  the  Episcopal 
churcn.  There  was  nothing  in  them  which  was  not  to  be 
met  with  in  hundreds  of  English  works,  in  free  circulation, 
both  in  England  and  this  country,  at  that  period.  These 
identical  works  are  now  to  be  seen  in  every  corner  of  our 
land,  and  I  am  confident  that  those  of  you  who  are  acquaint- 


ed  with  the  last  two,  and  have  used  them  in  your  devotional 
exercises  for  a  series  of  years,  will  hear  with  increduhty,  that 
these  are  the  "books  and  pamphlets"  which,  Dr,  Miller 
says,  "had  been  sent  abroad  with  much  assiduity  for  more 
than  a  year  before  they  were  noticed  by  any  Presbyterian," 
and  have  led  to  near  thirty  years  of  unrelenting  hostilities  on 
the  part  of  Dr.  Miller! 

What,  it  may  be  asked,  was  the  tenor  of  any  part  of  these 
publications,  that  they  should  stir  up  such  enduring  strife? 
Simply  that  any  reference  was  made  in  them  to  Episco- 
pacy, as  a  valid  and  apostolic  form  of  the  ministry;  a  doc- 
trine which  Dr.  M.  and  his  friends  had  chosen  to  consider  as 
exploded.  Conversely,  it  was  the  same  with  the  4lh  art.  of 
the  xxvii  ch.  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith :  which 
says,  ^' There  be  only  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  ovr 
Lord,  ill  the  Gospel:  neither  of  which  may  be  dispensed  by 
any  but  by  a  minister  of  the  word,  lawfully  ordainedP 
Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  equally  admit  this  doc- 
trine, and  only  disagree  as  to  what  order  of  men  are  the 
lauful  ordainers :  the  first  contend  that  it  is  the  order  of 
Bishops  alone;  the  olher  that  it  is  the  order  of  Presbyters 
alone.  Dr.  Hobart  asserted  the  Episcopal  opinion,  and  in 
thus  doing  he  committed  a  sin,  which,  in  the  eyes  of  Dr. 
Miller,  is  never  to  be  forgiven  or  forgotten.  At  this  period, 
when  the  heat  of  that  day,  at  least,  has  passed,  any  one 
may  see,  that  those  works  contain  nothing  in  regard  to  other 
churches,  resembling  the  view,  which  Dr.  M.  has  chosen  to 
spread  through  the  columns  of  the  American  Presbyterian. 

The  works  above  named,  had  been  but  a  short  time  in 
circulation,  before  they  attracted  the  attention  of  Dr.  J.  B. 
Linn,  a  Presbyterian  clergyman  of  distinguished  talents, 
then  residing  in  the  city  of  Albany.  He  saw  fit  to  attack 
them,  and  the  whole  Episcopal  system,  through  a  public 
political  newspaper.     This  was  the  tocsin — the  first  overt 


10 

act  in  the  controversy.  Episcopacy,  it  had  been  supposed, 
was  slowly  and  surely  descending  to  its  grave.  For  a  long 
time,  none  had  dared  to  lift  up  a  voice  in  favor  of  that  re- 
ligious system,  which,  both  before  and  after  the  Revolution, 
hands  almost  gigantic,  had  been  raised  to  crush.  But  vigor 
was  now  demonstrated  to  be  yet  remaining  in  the  system,  and 
it  had  displayed  itself  in  the  very  spot,  where,  if  sustained  at 
all,  it  must  acquire  power  and  influence.  The  young  Epis- 
copal aspirant  was  therefore  discovered  to  be  a  dangerous 
man.  Dr.  Linn  was  an  accomplished  scholar,  and  an  emi- 
nent man.  He  was,  therefore,  placed  in  the  front  rank. 
Doubtless  to  his  surprise.  Dr.  Linn  was  soon  himself  beset 
by  two  other  opponents.  Dr.  Beasley,  since  Provost  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania;  and  a  layman  of  Utica,in  the 
saBie  State,  of  distinguished  talents,  of  the  name  of  How. 
The  several  papers  of  these  three  writers  were  soon  after 
collected  into  a  volume,  by  an  Episcopal  editor,  with  the 
title  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy.  A  powerful  alarm  was 
now  excited,  and  the  late  Dr.  John  M.  Mason,  of  New 
York,  another  distinguished  Presbyterian  minister,  was  in- 
duced to  establish  a  magazine,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
on  the  warfare  to  better  advantage,  in  "the  very  point  of  the 
focal  heat."  Much  of  this  publication  was  occupied  with 
assaults  on  every  tower  of  Episcopacy.  The  first  and  se- 
cond numbers  containsd  severe  reviews  of  Hobart's  Com- 
panion for  the  Altar,  and  the  Essays  on  Episcopacy.  Those 
who  remember  the  distinguishing  traits  of  the  editor's  char- 
acter, will  easily  believe  that  this  publication  was  not  very 
likely  to  contribute  to  peace,  or  exhibit  any  considerable 
degree  of  respect  for  either  the  opinions  or  the  persons  of 
those  whom  he  opposed.  Yet  Episcopal  writers  of  that 
period  were  of  opinion,  that  the  cause  of  Episcopacy  derived 
strength  from  the  assaults  of  Drs.  Linn  and  Mason. — As- 
sailed, personally,  by  such  powerful  talenis,  Dr.  Hobart  was 


11 

compelled  to  appear  in  self-defence.  This  he  did,  in  an 
eloquent  Apology  for  Apostolic  order]  and  this,  in  the  year 
1807,  was  followed  by  Dr.  Miller'^s  celebrated  Letters  on 
the  Ministry.  Of  this  work,  it  was  said,  on  its  first  ap- 
pearance, and  by  one  who  it  is  believed  had  opportunity  for 
knowing  the  fact,  that  there  was  "good  reason  to  believe,  it 
had  been  the  labor  of  some  years.  We  shall  not  demand," 
said  the  same  writer,  "as  long  to  answer  it; and  if  it  cannot 
be  proved  to  be  full  of  sophistry,  inconsistency,  misstate- 
ments, and  misrepresentation,  let  Episcopacy  forever  hide 
its  head.  The  advocate  of  Episcopacy  fears  only  that  pre- 
judice, which  hears  one  party,  and  turns  a  deaf  ear  to  the 
other." 

Dr.  Miller's  work  received,  soon  after  its  publication, 
three  several  replies  from  the  pens  of  Dr.  Bowden,  Dr. 
Kemp,  and  Dr.  How.  So  little  was  he  himself  tJien  satis- 
fied with  the  result,  that  he  closed  his  second  volume,  in 
which  he  attempted  an  answer  to  the  sweeping  proofs  of 
Bowden  and  How,  with  the  expression  of  a  resolution,  that 
he  would  engage  no  more  in  the  Episcopal  controversy. 

Such  is  a  brief,  but  faithful  sketch  of  the  history  of  this 
controversy,  which  Dr.  Miller  has  so  much  misrepresented. 
Dr.  Hobart's  books,  to  which  Dr.  M.  traces  its  origin,  were 
not  controversial,  or  intended  to  excite  any  controversial 
feelings  in  others.  Two  of  them  were  indeed  devotional, 
and  strictly  intended  for  the  appropriate  use  of  Episcopa- 
lians. The  controversy  began  with  Dr.  Linn,  on  the 
Presbyterian  side.  There  was  no  ^^aiiack  by  Episcopalians 
on  non  Episcopal  churches,"  as  Dr.  M.  asserts;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  his  own  language,  in  the  very  article  now  before 
us,  in  the  American  Presbyterian,  with  regard  to  his  share  in 
the  controversy,  is,  that  he  wrote  his  Letters  on  the  Ministry 
"not  to  assail  or  injure  his  Episcopal  brethren;  but  simply  to 
show  that  their  exclusive  claims  were  unfounded.'*^    Very 


12 

kind  of  him,  indeed!  but  Dr.  Hobart's  books,  which,  he  says, 
commenced  the  controversy,  were  not  even  written  to  show- 
that  the  exchisive  claims  of  his  Presbyterian  brethren  were 
unfounded;  but  simply  to  instruct  Episcopalians  in  their 
own  religious  duties. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  where  the  controversy 
began,  and  who  are  to  be  charged  with  any  trouble  it  may 
have  produced;  but  it  may  be  well  to  add  Dr.  Miller''s  own 
plain  testimony  on  this  subject,  written  at  a  time  when 
there  was  no  necessity  for  disguising  the  truth  in  the  mat- 
ter; a  testimony  which  Dr.  M.  himself  seems  to  have  for- 
gotten, for  it  adds  another  to  his  many  very  strange  incon- 
sistencies in  connexion  with  Episcopacy.  On  p.  51  of  his 
Continuation  of  Letters  on  the  Ministry,  written  more  than 
twenty  years  ago,  he  deliberately  recorded  the  following 
declaration  in  reference  tu  the  Episcopal  and  other  churches: 
''^Preshyterians  have  been  in  the  habit  of  writing,  'preach- 
ing, and  printing  against  their  corruptions;''''  and  if  this 
does  not  mean  that  Presbyterians  had  been  in  the  practice, 
for  years  previously  to  the  publication  of  Dr.  Hobart's 
books,  of  assailing  the  Episcopal  church,  I  should  be  glad 
to  be  informed  what  it  does  mean.  This,  his  own  declara- 
tion, in  my  judgment,  fully  refutes  all  he  has  said  upon  the 
subject  of  the  origin  of  the  controversy,  in  the  columns  of 
the  American  Presbyterian. 

The  result  of  this  controversy  on  the  public  mind,  was  a 
large  immediate  increase  of  members  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  especially  in  the 
more  eastern  States,  and  the  accession  from  other  bodies  of 
several  who  have  since  ranked  among  the  most  useful  and 
talented  of  her  clergy.  These  facts  are  within  my  own 
personal  knowledge. 

One  would  suppose  from  Dr.  Miller's  statements,  that 
the  Episcopal  principle  had  never  been  asserted  or  contend- 


13 

ed  for  till  the  publications  of  Dr.  Hobart.  Yet  he  himself 
admits  that  Episcopacy  existed  in  the  church  as  early  as 
the  fourth  century. — and  the  principle  has  been  ever  since  as- 
serted and  contended  for,  almost,  indeed,  universally;  and 
to  the  full  height  to  which  it  was  carried  by  Dr.  Hoban's 
publications !  In  England,  especially,  has  this  been  the  case. 
Moshcim^  a  Lutheran,  tells  us,  that  ''the  church  of  England 
has  constantly  insisted  on  the  divine  origin  of  its  govern 
ment  and  discipline.*'  These  facts  are  well  known  to  every 
one  who  has  any  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  history.  How 
can  any  one,  then, have  the  assurance  to  assert,  tliat  the  free 
and  open  declaration  of  a  principle  which  has  prevailed  in 
the  world  as  long  as  Christianity  itself,  and  among  by  far 
the  larger  proportion  of  the  followers  of  Christ  in  the  whole 
world,  can  be  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  an  assault,  or  an  ag- 
gression? It  is  by  Dr.  Miller  and  his  coadjutors,  and  sup- 
porters, that  the  assault  and  aggression  is  made,  for  they, 
and  not  Episcopal  writers,  have  asserted  new  and  strange 
principles,  have  dissented  from,  and  endeavored  [^to  overturn, 
the  universally  received  doctrine. 

Dr.  Miller  says,  that  he  had  no  sooner  made  the  publica- 
tion of  his  Letters  on  the  Mimsfri/ — which,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, were,  by  his  own  admission,  intended  to  show  his 
Episcopal  brethren  that  their  ejcclusite  cJaiins  were  unfound- 
ed—ih<in'  *he  was  vehemently  attacked,  and  in  some  instances 
with  gross  indecorum,  by  three  or  four  assailants  whose 
works  abounded  with  what  may  not  improperly  be  called 
personal  abuse.-'  This  is  much  in  Dr.  Miller's  own  man- 
ner. He  does  not  aim  so  much,  in  general,  to  show  that  his 
adversary  is  wrong,  by  fair  and  manly  argument,  as  by 
bold  assertion,  and  unsparing  and  reproachful  imputations. 
He  is  more  anxious  to  wake  up  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  a 
feeling  against  his  opponent,  than  to  prove  him,  by  conclu- 
sive and  allowed  testimony,  to  be  in  the  wrong.     Specimens 

2 


14 

of  his  talent  in  this  way  abound  in  the  article  now  before  us 
in  the  American  Preshytcrian.  They  are  to  be  found 
throughout  his  controversial  writings.  And  they  have  con- 
tributed, in  a  large  degree,  to  the  very  unenviable  character 
he  now  sustains  as  a  controversialist,  among  Episcopa- 
lians, and  some  other  religious  denominations.  Any  one  who 
has  read  the  replies,  to  which  Dr.  M.  refers,  must,  I  think, 
admit  this  imputation  of  personalities  on  the  part  of  their 
authors,  to  be  totally  unfounded.  They  are  not  now  in  the 
way,  Dr.  M.  well  knows,  to  vindicate  themselves.  But, 
even'  if  their  replies  may  be  thought  by  some  to  be  at  all 
subject  to  Dr.  M's.  imputation,  a  very  brief  examination  of 
Dr.  M's.  Letters  would,  doubtless,  satisfy  them  that  there 
was  much  provocation  on  his  part.  Dr.  M.  himself  cannot 
deny  that  in  his  own  Letters  he  indulged  in  the  utmost  se- 
verity of  personal  remark."^ 

Although  Dr.  Miller  declared  in  the  Continuation  of  his 
Lett(rs,ihdii  is,  inihe second  volume  which  he  published  in 
the  controversy,  that  he  would  engage  in  it  no  more,  yet  he 
renewed  the  attack  upon  Episcopacy  and  Episcopalians  in 
ditierent  forms,  at  several  subsequent  periods,  and  down  even 
to  the  present  time.  In  nearly  every  work  he  has  published 
since  that  period,  he  has  contrived  to  make  manifest  in  some 
way,  his  enduring  animosity  to  Episcopacy.  In  1830  he 
published  a  second  edition  of  his  Letters  on  the  Ministry, 
accompanied  by  a  preface,  in  which  he  re-affirmed,  with 
much  additional  matter  directly  offensive  to  Episcopalians, 
all  that  he  had  previously  written;  and  now,  more  recently, 
he  has  repeated  it  in  the  Tract,  which  was  reprinted  in  the 
American  Presbyterian. 

In  justification  of  the  publication  of  this  Tract,he  says, 
that  the  request  of  those  for  whom  he  prepared  it,  was 

*See  Hobart's  Apology,  Letter  V,  and  How's  Vindication,.  Let- 
ter VL  for  a  full  refutation  of  this  charge  of  aggression. 


15 

founded  on  "the  known  fact,  that  pamphlet  after  pamphlet 
was  sent  forth^almost  every  week  from  the  Episcopal  camp 
intended  to  show  the  invalidity  of  Preshyterian  ordination 
and  ordinances,  and  to  recommend  all  the  peculiarities  of  the 
Episcopal  church,  as  alone  supported  by  Scripture."  That 
numerous  publications  have  been  issued,  in  defence  and  ex- 
planation of  the  principles  of  Episcopacy,  is  certainly  the 
fact;  and  this  constitutes  the  gist  of  this  complaint.  The  in- 
tention, which  he  imputes  as  their  origin,  is  obviously  a  mere 
conceit  of  his  own,  arising  from  the  morbid  condition  of  his 
feelings  upon  the  subject.  That  Episcopalians  should  un- 
dertake to  advocate  Episcopacy  has  always  been  a  sin  in 
his  eyes.  What  pamphlets  or  books,  in  particular,  he  alludes 
to,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say ;  but  he  well  knows  that 
while  very  few,  if  any  of  them,  assail  Presb\terianism, 
yet  those,  on  his  own  side,  and  they  have  not  been  a  few,  do, 
in  almost  every  instance,  directly  assail  Episcopacy  and 
Episcopalians. 

Let  Dr.  INIiller  read  asrain  his  Life  of  Dr.  Rogers — his 
Letter  to  a  gentleman  in  Baltimore,  on  the  case  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Duncan — his  Essay  on  the  office  of  Ruling  Elder — or 
his  Letters  to  Presbyterians* — in  reference  to  which  works, 
it  might  reasonably  be  asked,  what  ground  there  could  be 
for  making  them  the  vehicles  of  assault  upon  Episcopalians, 
or  Episcopacy.     Let  him  recollect  the  terms  of  reproach 

*I  make  the  following  extract  from  p.  300,  of  the  last  named 
work,  as  a  sufficient  specimen  of  the  whole:  *'When  a  Presbyterian 
ventures  into  a  Protestant  Episcopal  place  of  worship,  he  may 
sometimes^  indeed,  hear  nothing  offensive;  h\xi  much  more  gen- 
erally he  will  find  himself  revolted  by  claims  of  being  the  only 
true  church;  by  the  most  extravagant  praises  of  their  Liturgy  and 
prescribed  forms;  and  by  intimations  that  all  who  are  out  of  the 
Episcopal  pale  are  to  be  regarded  as  not  churches  of  Christ  at  all, 
and  as  out  of  the  covenanted  way  of  salvation!"  Credat  Judceus 
Apella! 


16 

upon  Episcopalians  which  he  has  compressed  into  his  pre 
face  to  the  second  edition  of  his  Letters  on  the  Ministry — 
let  him  notice  the  offensive  expressions  of  his  recent  Tract — 
let  him  call  to  mind  the  language  on  this  subject,  which  he 
has  for  years  accustomed  himself  to  use,  in  the  high  places 
of  the  General  Assembly — to  his  classes  in  the  Seminary — 
and  in  his  general  intercourse  with  society,  and  there  will 
be  proof  enough  of  efforts,  directly  and  strongly  made,  to 
put  down  Episcopacy. 

The  examination  of  the  publications  referred  to,  will  con- 
vince any  intelligent  and  impartial  reader,  that  I  am  fully 
justified  in  imputing  to  Dr.  Miller  the  feeling  towards  Epis- 
copacy which  the  Romans  entertained  against  Carthage — 
that  his  animosity  against  Episcopacy  is  both  inveterate  and 
enduring.  When  Dr.  Rice,  of  Virginia,  declared,  that  "by 
the  help  of  God,  he  would  wage  a  warfare  against  Episco- 
pacy while  his  life  should  last,"  he  did  not  give  stronger  evi- 
dence of  his  animosity,  than  Dr.  Miller  has  by  his  repeated 
denunciations  and  proscriptions.  It  has  been  said,  however, 
and  perhaps  with  some  truth,  that  his  recent  Tract  would 
not,  probably,  have  seen  the  light,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
immediately  precedent  erection  of  an  Episcopal  church  al- 
most under  the  eves  of  the  Seminary  in  which  Dr.  M.  is  a 
professor;  where  other  principles,  more  agreeable  to  his 
mind,  were  supposed  but  a  short  time  since  to  have  had  per- 
petual and  exclusive  possession.* 

*I  do  not,  at  this  time,  recollect  a  single  passage  of  any  Episco- 
pal writer,  in  this  controversy,  which  can  be  construed,  by  any  effort, 
to  mean  any  thing  more  disadvantageous  to  Presbyterians,  than  a 
remark  of  Dr.  Miller's  substantially  repeated  times  without  num- 
ber, in  his  publications,  is  to  Episcopalians,  that  "the  doctrine,  order, 
and  worship  of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  solidly  founded  in  scrip- 
ture, and  the  parest  christian  antiquity,  and  that  all  departures 
from  them  are  unauthorized  innovations.^^    I  repeat,  that  I 


17 

But,  as  I  have  stated  above,  it  was  not  of  the  original 
publication  of  his  Tract  that  I  have  complained  in  my  Let- 
ter to  the  Editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian.  In  this  re- 
mote region,  far  distant  from  the  place  of  its  origin,  and 
equally  so,  in  a  good  degree  from  the  active  discussion  of 
the  questions  it  involves;  occupied  with  employments  quite 
sufficient  for  any  powers  which  I  may  possess;  I  might  and 
should  have  contentedly  left  to  the  pens  of  my  brethren  of 
the  East,  to  give  it  such  notice  as  they  might  suppose  it  to 
require.  That  nothing  has  yet  appeared  in  that  region  in 
reply  to  it,  where,  according  to  Dr.  M.  "for  a  page  of  this 
character  from  a  Presbyterian  pen,  at  least  five  hundred 
have  appeared  from  his  Episcopal  neighbours,"  is  perhaps 

do  not  recollect  any  passage  of  aiii/  Episcopal  writer  which  car- 
ries the  principle  of  exclusiveness  further  than  this.  Yet  for  Epis- 
copalians to  pretend  to  say  as  much  as  this  on  behalf  of  Episcopacy, 
Di ,  Miller  has  ever  considered  to  be  a  grevious  sin,  never  to  be  for- 
given— he  represents  it  as  "a  violent  attack  on  non  Episcopal 
churches" — as  "representing  such  churches  as  institutions  founded 
in  rebellion  and  schism,  and  all  who  are  in  communion  with  such 
churches,  aliens  from  Christ,  out  of  the  appointed  road  to  heaven, 
having  no  interest  in  the  promises  of  God,  and  no  hope  but  in  his 
uncovenanted  mercy,  which  may  be  extended  to  them  in  couimou 
with  the  serious  and  conscientious  heathen."  So  too,  the  Editors 
of  the  American  Presbyterian,  quite  indifferent,  it  would  seem, 
whom  the  slander  might  wound,  or  how  far  the  great  enemy  of 
souls  might  derive  benefit  to  his  cause  by  such  unfounded  reproaches, 
could  deliberately  tell  their  readers  that  "the  clergy  of  the  Episco- 
pal church  would  unchurch  other  denominations,  and  deny  them 
the  honor  and  consolation  of  being  an  integral  part  of  the  christian 
church."  The  assertion  has  been  shown  to  them  to  be  unfounded, 
but  they  have  not  had  the  right  feeling  to  retract  it,  and  their  1200 
subscribers,  and  more  than  1200  readers  are  allowed,  on  their  au- 
thority, to  believe  it  to  be  true.  I  certainly  do  not  envy  them  any 
satisfaction,  which  they,  as  professing  christians,  looking  forward  to 
the  last  great  account,  may  derive  from  such  a  course  of  conduct. 

2* 


18 

proof  sufficient,  that  Dr.  Miller's  controversial  character  and 
habits  are  too  well  known  to  call  for  any  particular  attention 
at  this  late  day.  What  I  complained  of  was  the  uncalled 
for  republication  of  this  offensive  controversial  Tract,,  by 
the  Editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian,  in  a  community 
which  was  at  peace  upon  the  subject;  thereby  applying  all 
the  obnoxious  imputations  it  contained  to  the  Episcopalians 
of  this  city  and  region. 

After  all  this,  Dr.  Miller  really  has  the  confidence  to  say, 
that  he  has  never  published  a  sentence  in  anywise  respect- 
ing the  Episcopal  denomination,  but  what  was  drawn  from 
him  by  repeated  previous  assaults  on  her  part,  and  in  the 
purest  selfdefence.  What  does  he  mean,  then,  by  his  recent 
admission  that  his  object  in  his  Letters  on  the  Ministry  was 
to  show  his  Episcopal  hrethren  that  their  claims  were  un- 
founded? Was  this  pure  selfdefence?  Was  it  in  pure  self- 
defence  that  he  urged  those  to  whom  he  addressed  his  Let- 
ters on  the  Ministry  in  allusion  to  Episcopalians,  to  hear 
with  bigots — to  regard  hightoned  Episcopalians  in  the  same 
light  with  those  who  ^^consistently  believe  that  transubstan- 
tiojt  is  a  doctrine  of  Scripture;  that  the  Pope  is  irifallible; 
that  images  are  a  great  help  to  devotion;  and  that  there  is 
no  salvation  out  of  the  church  of  Rome  f''''  Was  it  in  pure 
selfdefence  that  he  described  the  religious  doctrines  held  by 
Episcopalians  generally,  "«s  nearly  if  not  quite  as  likely 
to  land  the  believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned  as  in  the  pa- 
radise of  God?''''  Or,  more  recently,  as  ^Heading  to  blank  and 
cheerless  AtheismV  Was  it  necessary  in  pure  selfdefence, 
(as  he  does  in  all  his  publications  on  the  subject)  to  carry  the 
war  into  the  Episcopal  camp  ?  And  if  so,  does  it  not  show 
that  my  assertion  was  well  founded,  that  in  Dr.  M's.  be- 
lief, the  destruction  of  Episcopac)^  is  needful  to  the  esta- 
blishment of  his  own  system?  Is  it  indeed  necessary,  in 
order  to  show  that  the  claims  of  his  own  church  are  just. 


19 

that  he  should  first  prove  that  the  claims  of  his  Episcopal 
brethren  are  unfounded?  The  fact  is,  that  Dr.  M.  holds 
conversely  the  identical  proposition  of  the  Episcopalian; 
and  he  seems  perfectly  sensible,  and  through  his  whole  con- 
troversial life  has  acted  strenuously  upon  the  principle,  that 
his  own  system  could  not  be  well  founded  while  Episcopacy 
was  allowed  to  stand.  Hence  it  is,  that  what  he  calls  pure 
selfdefence,has  been,  in  truth,  direct  assault — that  his  efforts 
have  been  invariably  directed  to  pull  down  and  destroy — 
that  the  whole  force  of  his  arm,  the  whole  power  of  his  intel- 
lectual battery  have  been  usedeto  that  end;  and  though  he 
may  have  conceived  all  this  to  be  but  pure  selfdefence,  pro- 
bably no  other  man  in  the  country,  acquainted  with  the 
subject,  has  been  so  deceived  as  himself. 

A  remarkable  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  Dr. 
Miller  allows  himself  to  conduct  his  controversy,  is  shown 
in  the  following  paragraph:  "What,  he  says,  would  be 
thought  of  a  ruffian  who  would,  without  the  least  pro- 
vocation, assail  with  personal  violence  a  neighbor  of  the 
most  unexceptionable  character  and  deportment,  and  when 
that  neighbour  resented  and  repelled  his  violence,  should  say, 
why  did  you  attack  me."  Apart  from  the  fact  that  this  is  a 
mere  begging  of  t-he  question,  so  far  as  reasoning  is  con- 
cerned, yet  it  is  obvious  that  his  opponent,  perhaps  myself,  is 
here  compared  to  a  ruffian,  and  Dr.  Miller  is  himself  the 
"gentleman  of  the  most  unexceptionable  character  and  de- 
portment 1"  His  opponent,  too,  is  farther  described  as  "a 
compound  of  meanness,  insolence  and  falsehood!"  No 
comment,  surely,  can  be  necessary  here,  further  than  to 
ask,  with  what  propri  ety  such  a  writer  can  complain  of  inde- 
corum on  the  part  of  his  opponents ! 

Lest,  however,  Dr.  M's.  gross  misrepresentations  of  the 
principles  of  Episcopalians,  in  the  opening  of  his  communi- 
cation, should  not  have   made  an  impression  sufficiently 


20 

strong,  he  repeats  it  at  the  close  of  his  remarks  on  the  origin 
and  causes  of  this  controversy .  I  repeat  that  this  represen- 
tation is  untrue;  and  I  must  either  behevehim,  notwithstan- 
ding all  he  has  written  on  the  subject,  to  be  yet  very  igno- 
rant of  our  opinions,  or  else  that  he  wilfully  misrepresents 
them.  I  again  repeat,  and  every  one  at  all  acquainted  with 
the  subject  will  confirm  my  statement,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Episcopal  church  is  identically  the  same,  on  this  sub 
ject,  with  the  4th  art.  of  the  xxvii.  chap,  of  the  Preshyte- 
rian  Confession  of  Faith,  as  is  stated  on  page  9  I  repeat, 
that  any  view  of  our  doctrine  which  makes  it  more  exclusive 
than  is  there  stated,  is  unwarranted  by  the  Episcopal  church, 
whatever  opinions  any  individuals  may  be  shown,  or  suppo- 
sed, to  have  held.  The  position  of  Episcopalians  towards 
Presbyterians  is,  in  fact,  literally  the  same  with  that  of  the 
Presbyterians  themselves  towards  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terians. 

No  stretch  of  credulity  will  enable  us  to  credit  Dr.  M's. 
assertion — which  was  doubtless  written  adcapiandum — that 
he  ''yet  loves  and  honors  Episcopalians  as  brethren  in  Christ, 
and  is  ever  ready  to  treat  them  as  such  V  Dr.  M's  conduct 
towards  our  church  has  been  hitherto  that  of  unrelenting 
hostility,  without  the  slightest  indication  of  even  a  desire  for 
peace.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  palm  such  language  as 
this  upon  us.  It  is,  however,  even  yet  more  surprising,  that 
after  the  publication  of  his  Tract  on  Presbyterianism;  nay, 
after  the  gross  misrepresentations  of  the  principles  of  Epis- 
copalians which  I  have  now  been  employed  in  noticing,  he 
should  have  the  confidence  to  assert  that  "even  in  respect  to 
those  points  in  which  he  cannot  concur  with  Episcopalians 
he  condemns  them  not:  but  simply  assigns  the  reasons  why 
he  is  constrained  to  deviate  from  their  practice;"  an  asser- 
tion plainly  contradicted  by  almost  every  line  he  has  writ- 
ten on  the  subject  in  the  last  quarter  of  a  century.     And  he 


21 

claims  to  have  had  injustice  done  to  his  motives  by  me,  when 
I  charge  him  with  a  hostility,  enduring  and  unvarying,  evi- 
denced by  his  own  admissions,  to  the  church  to  which  I  be- 
long! He  claims  the  sympathy  of  the  community  against 
me,  for  daring  to  repel  his  unmeasured  imputations  and 
misrepresentations  I  If  his  account  of  our  opinions  and  con- 
duct be  true,  we  are,  plainly,  little  better  than  the  ruffians 
he  intimates  us  to  be;  and  for  repelling  such  assaults, — for 
claiming  to  be  understood  in  our  true  character, — for  being 
unwilling  to  be  cast  out  and  trodden  under  foot  of  men,  we 
are  to  be  spoken  of  as  "a  compound  of  insolence,  and  false- 
hood, and  meanness!" 

Severely  has  Dr.  M.  tried  our  patience,  and  difficult  is  it 
to  restrain  ourselves  from  speaking  of  his  conduct  as  every 
impartial  man  will  admit  that  it  deserves. 

But  this  topic  has  already  engrossed  too  much  of  your  at- 
tention. Let  us  pass  to  his  second  point,  which  is  in  rela 
tion  to  his  treatment  of  the  epistles  of  Ignatius. 

II.  The  second  point  to  which  Dr.  Miller  directs  the  at- 
tention of  his  readers,  is  one  which  he  is  reasonably  anxious 
to  exhibit  in  a  light  more  favorable  to  himself,  than  that  in 
which  it  appears  in  my  Letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  American 
Presbyterian.  He  has  been  often  accused  "of  deliberately 
pronouncing  opposite  judgments  concerning  the  same  writer, 
as  it  happened  to  serve  his  purpose.'^''  The  charge  was  re- 
peated in  the  Letter  to  the  American  Presbyterian,  accom- 
panied by  sufficient  evidence,  in  my  judgment,  to  sustain  it. 
Since  that  time  I  have  had  access  to  other  writings  of  Dr. 
M.  then  not  in  my  possession,  and  I  am  now,  therefore,  able 
to  present  a  still  stronger  view  of  Dr.  Miller's  variations  of 
opinion'or  expression,  in  regard  to  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius. 

The  following  are  faithful  extracts  from  his  Letters  on  the 
Ministry,  first  published  in  1807,  and  reprinted  about  live 
years  since,  with  the  same  expression  unaltered — his  Letters 


22 

on  Unitarianisjn,  publislied  in  1821 — and  his  Essay  on  the 
offieeof  Lay  Elder,  published  in  1832. 

1807.  I  1821.  ]  1832. 

That  even  the  short-}  The  author  is  aware'  Intelligent  readers 
er  Epistles  of  Ignatius  that  the  authenticity  ofare  no  doubt  aware 
are  unworthy  of  confi-  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  that  the  genuineness  of 
dence  as  the  genuine  has  been  called  in  ques- the  Epistles  of  Igna- 
works  of  the  father  tion. — It  is  sufficient  tins  has  been  called  in 
whose  name  they  bear,  /or  his  purpose  to  question  by  a  great 
is  the  opinion  of  some  say,  that  the  great  bo-;  majority  of  the  Protes- 
of  the  ablest  and  best  dy  of  learned  men  con-.tant  divines,  and  is  not 
judges  of  the  Piotes-sider  the  smaller  Epis- only  really  but  deeply 
tant  world.  ities  of  Ignatius,  as   in, questionable. 

'the     main     the     realj 

'works    of  the    writer! 

iwhose  name  they  bear.  1 

I  now  deliberately  ask  you  whether  an  intelligent  reader 
can  at  all  reconcile  these  discordant  opinions?  A  short  solu- 
tion of  the  ditliculty  is,  that  in  the  first  and  last  instances  he 
was  arguing  against  Episcopalians,  while  the  almost  unani- 
mous voice  of  the  christian  world  has  been,  that,  if  the  Epis- 
tles of  Ignatius  are  genuine,  they  bear  unequivocal  testimo 
ijy  to  Episcopacy  beyond  all  power  of  evasion.  In  his  con- 
troversy with  us,  therefore,  they  are  a  mountain  in  his 
way  which  must  be  uprooted  but  cannot  be  passed.  In 
the  other  instance,  they  bear  an  equally  unequivocal 
testimony  against  Unitarians,  and  are  an  equally  im- 
passable barrier  to  them.  In  the  first  case  it  is  student  for 
his  jmrpose  to  deny — in  the  next  to  admit — and  then  again 
to  deny,  their  genumeness.  Notwithstanding  his  attempt  to 
explain  these  discrepancies,  the  solution  I  have  given,  is,  as 
I  verily  believe,  the  only  one  which  can  be  made  capable  of 
satisfying  any  honest  enquirer. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  in  his  late  Tract  on  Presbyte- 
rianism,  he  does  n(jt  call  in  question  the  authority  of  Igna- 
tius, in  any  sense,-  but  sensible,  without  doubt,  from  his  past 
experience,  that  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  as  a  witness  to  a 


23 

matter  of  fact,  cannot  now  be  effectually  questioned,  he  ex- 
hibits his  utmost  ingenuity  in  striving  to  make  him  h  witness 
for  Presby terianism ;  though,  even  in  this  effort,  any  one  ac- 
quainted with  the  controversy  will  easily  perceive,  that  in 
the  way  Dr.  M.  presents  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  it 
is  in  fact  much  more  on  the  side  of  independency  or  Congrega- 
tionalism, than  of  his  own  church.  Yet  Dr.  M.  says  in  the 
American  Presbyterian,  that,  when  he  quotes  Ignatius  in  that 
tract  as  authority,  he  is  not  "at  all  inconsistent  with  the  judg- 
ment expressed  in  either  of  the  foregoing  publications!" 

But  Dr.  M.  contends,  that,  notwithstanding  these  occa- 
sional denials  of  the  competency  of  the  testimony  of  Igna- 
tius, he  had  a  right  to  quote  him  against  Episcopalians,  as 
such.     For,  he  asks : 

*'Do  not  Episcopalians  regard  him  as  both  a  genaine  and  authen- 
tic witness?  Was  it  not  perfectly  fair  to  adduce  his  testimony  to 
fAem,  upon  the  principle  of  i\\e  argumentum  od  hominem?  Is 
this  writer  incapable  of  understanding  the  principle,  that  a  writer  in 
whom  /  have  no  confidence,  may  be  fairly  quoted  by  me  in  contro- 
versy with  those  who  profess  to  have  entire  confidence  in  him? 
Surely  your  correspondent  is  too  ignorant  to  undertake  to  discuss 
a  subject  of  this  kind." 

Of  my  ignorance — which  he  repeatedly  imputes  to  me, — 
I  shall  leave  others  to  judge.  I  have  not,  however,  denied  his 
right  to  quote  Ignatius  against  Episcopacy,  unless  he  may  so 
construe  my  language  when  I  say  (page  20)  that  Dr.  M.  "has 
the  rashness  to  quote  Ignatius, — that  identical  father,  whose 
writings  are  genuine,  or  not  genuine — worthy  or  not  worthy 
of  confidence,  according  as  he  may  be  to  serve  the  purpose  to 
which  Dr.  M.  chooses  to  apply  him."  If  Dr.  M.  can,  by 
any  fair  means,  produce  passages  from  the  shorter  Epistles 
of  Ignatius  adverse  to  Episcopacy,  it  is  undeniably  proper 
that  he  should  do  so;  and  Episcopalians, — allowing,  in  com- 
mon with  almost  every  distinguished  scholar  who  has  exam- 


24 

ined  the  question,  as  will  be  shown,  the  integrity  oFthese  Epis- 
tles,— and  claiming,  as  they  do,  that  they  bear  strong  and  pow- 
erful testimony  to  their  principles, — must  submit  to  have 
their  testimony  turned  against  Episcopacy  whenever  an  ad- 
versary shall  be  found  capable  of  doing  it.  But  that  Dr.  M. 
has  not  such  capacity, — that  the  Epistles  themselves  cannot 
be  so  interpreted, — no  candid  enquirer  needs  to  be  informed. 
Let  us,  however,  try  Dr.  Miller  by  the  rule  which  he  thus 
broadly  lays  down.  He  has  a  right,  even  when  denying 
the  integrity  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  to  turn  their  testi- 
mony, if  he  can,  against  Episcopacy.  In  his  Letters  on 
Unitarianism,  he  makes  free  use  of  quotations  from  these 
same  Epistles.  In  the  text  where  this  testimony  is  cited, 
there  is  nothing  to  imply  that  he  did  not  think  himself  quoting 
a  writer  of  unquestioned  authenticity.  All  that  he  says, 
admitting  a  different  construction,  is  in  a  brief  note  at  the 
foot  of  page  122,  which  I  have  quoted  above,  and  which  any 
one  may  perceive  could  not  have  been  intended  to  cast  any 
very  deep  shade  of  doubt,  over  the  very  important  testimo- 
ny with  which  he  had  been  furnished  by  those  Epistle?. 
Nay,  he  even  says,  (page  124,)  of  Ignatius,  and  others  whom 
he  had  previously  quoted:  "JlZZ  the  witnesses  [Ignatius  in- 
cluded] whom  I  have  quoted,  lived  in  the  first  century,  and 
were  personally  acquainted  with  some  of  the  Apostles. 
Their  testimony,  therefore,  is  weighty,  and  ivorihy  of  pe- 
culiar attention?''  I  am  not  about  to  dispute  that  Dr.  M.  is 
right  in  this  view  of  the  testimony  of  the  apostolic  fathers^ 
including  Ignatius,  but  I  ask,  whether  Dr.  M.  could  have 
been  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  Unitarians  have,  very 
generally,  denied  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  Ig" 
natius,  not,  like  himself,  for  the  support  which  tney 
give  to  Episcopacy,  merely;  but  because  they  also  powei- 
fully  sustain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  for  which,  in  his 
Letters  on   Unitarianism,  he  quotes  them.     Did  he — who 


25 

professes  to  be  a  master  in  Israel,  and  contemptuously  imputes 
to  me  ignorance  of  the  matter  in  controversy,  not  know  that 
Lardner  says  that  "even  the  smaller  Epistles  of  Ignatius 
may  have  been  tampered  w'lih  by  the  Arians,  or  Orthodox, 
or  both,"  and  that,  of  course,  on  the  very  points  at  issue  be- 
tween Dr.  M.  and  the  Unitarians?  Did  he  not  A'/iozr,  that 
Priestley,  in  his  controversy  with  Horsley,  labored  hard  to 
disprove  the  credibility  of  those  Epistles,  on  this  very  point; 
asserting,  almost  in  Dr.  M's.  own  language  when  arguing 
against  Episcopacy,  that  "their  genuineness  is  not  only  very 
much  doubted,  but  generally  given  up  by  the  learned'*  ?  Or,  if 
he  did  know  this,  by  what  rule  of  logic  does  he  profess  to  quote 
Ignatius  against  them,  as  testimony  weighty  and  worthy  of 
peculiar  attention?  Dr.  Miller  has  surely  placed  himself  in 
a  very  strange  dilemma.  Episcopalians  admit  the  authenti- 
city of  the  shorter  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  and  therefore  while 
Dr.  M.  denies  that  authenticitj^,  he  may  nevertheless,  quote 
them  against  Episcopacy.  But  both  Dr.  M.  (supposing 
him  to  be  in  the  slightest  degree  consistent,)  and  Unitarians 
deny  their  genuineness,  and  yet  he  quotes  them  against  Unita- 
rians as  testimony  weighty  and  worthy  of  peculiar  attention! 
Who  can  doubt,  that,  in  truth.  Dr.  M.  denies  their  authenti- 
city, when,  as  in  the  case  of  Episcopacy,  their  testimony  is 
plainly  against  him ;  and  admits  their  genuineness  when  he 
can  use  their  testimony  against  others.  He  may  say.  it  is 
true,  that  he,  and  some  others,  believe  the  testimony  which 
these  Epistles  bear  to  the  existence  of  Episcopacy  in  the  first 
century,  to  be  interpolated,  and  that  their  testimony  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  genuine;  but  the  Unitarian 
meets  him  with  the  assertion,  that  they  were  tampered  with 
by  the  Orthodox  and  the  Arians  against  each  other,  and 
therefore  are  of  no  authority  against  Unitarianism !  He  may 
say  that,  if  all  such  passages,  as  he  has  quoted  in  favor  of 
the  Trinity,  be  struck  out  from  those  Epistles,  it  would  be 


26 

impossible  to  make  sense  of  the  remainder;  and  we  say  the 
same  of  those  which  go  to  sustain  Episcopacy  j  remove  them^ 
and  what  is  left  will  be  wholly  unintelligible.  The  passages 
which  sustain  Episcopacy,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
are  absolutely  necessary  to  the  sense,  and  if  these  are  struck 
out  as  interpolated,  the  Epistles  would  serve  no  purpose  to 
Dr.  Miller,  or  any  one  else.     Let  him  make  the  effort. 

Dr.  Miller  is  not  content  with  simply  charging  me  with 
being  too  ignorant  to  undertake  to  discuss  a  subject  of  this 
kind,  but  he  also  asserts,  in  the  vituperative  manner  of 
which  every  opponentyl  believe,  without  exception,  in  his 
numerous  controversies  has  complained,  that  my  ignorance 
is  profound.  He  says,  that  I  discover  ^^profound  ignorance 
of  the  whole  state  of  the  case  and  controversy  concerning  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius." 

I  am  not  able  to  see  that  I  was  called  on,  either  by  any- 
thing which  was  contained  in  his  Tract,  as  published  in  the 
American  Presbyterian ;  or,  in  the  brief  space  of  a  page  or 
two  in  the  hastily  prepared  Letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Amer- 
ican Presbyterian,  to  exhibit  any  great  show  of  knowledge 
on  the  subject.  Neither  does  such  an  imputation  come  with 
ver>  good  grace  from  one,  who  is  familiarly  reported  to  have 
quoted  for  many  years  from  a  mutilated  copy  of  Ignatius, 
without  being  sufficiently  acquainted  with  "the  state  of  the 
case  and  controversy"  to  be  aware  of  the  mutilation;  or  who 
could  express  himself  in  regard  to  ^'the  state  of  the  case  and 
controversy,"  with  such  irreconcileable  variety  as  has  been 
shown  above.  But  let  us  test  his  own  knowledge  of  this  sub- 
ject more  fully.  He  undertakes  to  enlighten  my  ignorance, 
by  informing  me  that  "some  of  the  most  competent  judges  and 
writers  of  the  Episcopal  church,  confess  that  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius  have  been  corrupted  with  respect  to  the  subject  of 
Episcopacy."  I  certainly  admit  my  ignorance  of  this  fact, 
and,  until  he  informs  us  who  those  judges  and  writers  are,  must 


27 

believe  that  his  ignorance  is  as  profound  as  my  own.  1  will 
go  farther,  and  unequivocally  deny  the  truth  of  his  assertion. 
The  only  writer  to  whom  he  refers  in  support  of  this  opinion, 
which,  if  well  founded,  could  be  easily  sustained,  is  the  au- 
thor of  an  anonymous  communication  in  the  Christian  Ob- 
server for  the  year  1803.  Dr.  M''s.  professed  object  in 
this  single  reference  is  to  enlighten  my  profound  igno- 
rance-, when,  then,  in  this  matter,  he  brings  in  the  Christ- 
ian Observer  as  authority,  which  it  certainly  well  deserves 
in  many  respects  to  be  considered,  1  must  ask  whether  he 
did  not  hnow  that  a  translation  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius, 
had  been  actually  mac^^-^or  and  published  in  the  previous 
volume  of  the  same  work,  and  recommended  to  its  readers  as 
the  remains  of  a  pious  father  of  the  church,  and  martyr, 
without  any  other  intimation  of  doubt  in  regard  to  any  por- 
tion of  them,  than  is  contained  in  the  following  brief  note  to 
the  seventh ;  "the  authenticity  of  all  the  superscriptions  may 
be  doubted  of,  without  any  injury  to  the  credic  of  the  Epis- 
tles themselves"?  All  the  testimony,  then,  which  Dr.  M. 
adduces  to  sustam  his  assertion,  that  ^'some  of  the  most  com- 
petent judges  and  icriterso^  the  Episcopal  church  confess 
that  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  have  been  corrupted  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Episcopacy,"  is  that  of  a  single  anonymous  writer,  in 
a  work,  whose  editors  had  caused  those  very  Epistles  to  be 
translated  and  published  as  genuine! 

But  of  what  value  is  the  testimony  of  this  anonymous 
writer  in  the  case?  Are  we  to  rely  upon  his  bare  opinion, 
without  any  proof  to  sustain  it?  What  facts  does  he  allege 
to  convince  us,  that  "the  language  of  Ignatius  on  the  Episcopal 
question  is,  at  the  earliest,  the  language  of  the  fourth  centu- 
tury"?  None  whatsoever.  Is  the  language  of  Ignatius  con- 
tradicted by  any  other  early  writer?  Evidence  of  this,  nei- 
ther is,  nor  can  be  adduced.  Is  it  contrary  to  known  facts 
in  the  history  of  that  period?     It  certainly  is  not.     Gibbon^ 


28 

a  disinterested  witness,  tells  us  plainly  that  "after  we  have 
passed  the  difficulties  of  the  Jirst  century,  we  find  Episcopa- 
cy every  where  established;"  and  the  inference  which  this 
selfsame  anonymous  writer  in  the  Christian  Observer  draws 
from  the  writings  of  the  other  primitive  fathers  generally,  is 
that  '"Episcopacy  was  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  and  there- 
fore comes  from  God;'*'  an  inference,  in  my  judgment, 
decidedly  against  his  view  of  the  credibility  of  the  Epistles 
of  Ignatius.  No  writer  who  has  impugned  the  veracity  of 
these  Epistles  has  yet  attempted  to  point  out  distinctly  the 
passages  v.hich  he  supposes  to  be  interpolated;  a  fact  which 
alone  bears  with  irresistible  weight  against  their  opinions. 
In  his  late  "Tract  on  Presbyterianism,"  written,  as  he  declares 
in  the  preface,  "solely  for  the  instruction  of  Presbyterians," 
Dr.  M.  repeatedly  quotes  Ignatius,  without  the  slightest  impu- 
tation upon  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles;  and,  of  course,  al- 
lowing his  Presbyterian  readers  to  infer,  that  no  such  impu- 
tation can  be  made.  The  passages  which  he  quotes,  more- 
over, are  parts  of  the  very  same  which  Episcopalians  cite  on 
the  subject  of  the  ministry :  that  identical  subject  on  which, 
lie  says  above,  he  has  no  confidence  in  Ignatius,  but  which 
he  may  quote  against  Episcopalians  who  profess  to  nave  en- 
tire confidence  in  him. 

These  remarks  bear  equally  against  the  opinion  of  Nean- 
der,  a  modern  Ecclesiastical  historian,  of  Germany,  whom 
Dr.  M.  quotes,  with  evident  gratification  at  the  acquisition 
of  what  he  seems  to  think  a  new  witness  to  his  cause.  It 
will  be  time  enough  to  admit  its  force,  when  testimony  to  the 
actual  interpolations  is  produced.  In  the  meantime,  as  the 
knowledge  of  "the  whole  state  of  the  case  and  controversy," 
does  not  involve  any  vast  amount  of  learning,  it  will  be  very 
easy  for  any  man  of  a  little  research,  to  form  an  opinion  of 
it,  as  competently  as  Neander,  or  any  other  writer,  whom  Dr 
M.  chooses  to  commend  as  Icarnedj  when  their  opinions  are 


29 

on  his  side,  or  to  condemn  asprofoundly  ignorant  when  they 
happen  to  differ  from  him. 

The  facts  in  regard  to  these  Epistles  are   simply   these : 
Ancient  writers  mention  seven  Epistles  of  Ignatious,  as  writ- 
ten by  him,  when  on  the  way  from  Antioch,  of  which  he 
had  been  bishop,  or  prelate,  for  forty  years,  to  Rome;  where 
he  was  taken,  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Trajan,  to  be  torn  to 
death  by  wild  beasts.     These  Epistles  are  quoted,  or  referred 
to  by  Polycarp,  Ireneeus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Je- 
rome, Theodoret,  and  Gelasius;  and  others  of  the   fathers. 
Le  Clerc,  in  his  Apostolical  Fathers,  and  Pearson   in   his 
Fmc?ic«^/on  of  these  Epistles,  quote  testimonies  in  their  favor 
down  to  the  fourteenth  century.     There  are,  at  present,  two 
editions  of  these  Epistles  extant,  which  are  familiarly  called 
the  larger,  and  the  smaller,  or  shorter.     The  former   were 
first  printed  in  1498,  in  an  old  Latin  version,  and  in  1557  in 
Greek.     The  shorter  Epistles  were  first  printed  m  a  Latin 
version  by  Abp.  t/isAer,  from  two  MSS,  in  1644,  and  t>vo 
years  later  in  Greek,  from  a  MS.  in  the  Medicean  Library  at 
Florence,  by  Vossius.  Wkiston,  an  English  author,  and  pos- 
sibly, as  some  may  think,  Mosheim,  are  the  only  writers,  of 
whom  I  have  heard,  who  have  set  up  any  pretension  in  favor  of 
the  iategrity  of  the  larger  edition.     But  the  quotations  iu  the 
ancient  fathers,  are  found  to  correspond  perfectly  with  the 
shorter  edition,  as  well  as  the  Latin  and  Greek  copies  with 
ench  other.     Usher,  Vos?ius,  Hammond,  Petavius,  Grotius, 
Pearson,  Bull,  Cave,  Wake,  Cotelerius,  Grabe,  Dupin,   Til- 
lemont,    Le    Clerc,  Fabricius,  Bochart,  Jorlin,   Horsley, 
Bowden,  with  several  of  the  more  learned  modern   German 
critics,  and  others,have  asserted,  and  most  of  them  rmd/ca^erf, 
the  authenticity   of  the   shorter  Epistles.     Mosheim  in  his 
Ecc.  Hist,  says :  "The  most  learned  of  men  acknowledge 
these  [the  shorter  Epistles]  to  be  genuine,  as  they   stand  in 
the  edition  published  from  a  MS.  in  the  Medicean  Libra- 
s' 


30 

ry,"  by  Vossius.  Paley  in  his  Evidences  of  Christianity 
says:  *'What  are  called  the  smaller  Epistles,  are  generally 
deemed  to  be  those  which  were  read  by  Irenoeus,  Origen, 
and  Eusebius."  Even  Lardner  says :  that  they  "are  allowed  to 
be  genuine  by  a  great  number  of  learned  men,  whose  opin- 
ion I  think  to  be  founded  on  probable  arguments;"  and  that 
he  will  not  himself  "affirm  that  there  aie  in  them  any  con- 
siderable corruptions  or  alterations."  On  the  other  hand  I 
believe  the  only  Protestant  divines,  who  have  called  in  ques- 
tion the  authenticity  of  these  Epistles,  are  Blondel,  Daille, 
Salmasius,  Priestley,  and  in  our  own  country,  Dr.  Rice  and 
Dr.  Miller.  Burton,  in  his  very  learned  work  on  the  Testi- 
monies of  the  anti-Nicene  Fathers  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
calls  the  assertion  of  Priestley  that  "the  genuineness  of  the 
shorter  Epistles  of  Ignatius  is  not  only  very  much  doubted 
but  generally  given  up  by  the  learned,"  a  ^^presumptous 
falsehood,'''' — a  strong  but  merited  expression.  And  the  Edi- 
tors of  the  British  Critic  (1827)  say :  "we  strongly  suspect, 
that  when  Priestley  made  this  rash  assertion  he  was  unac- 
quainted with  the  writings  of  those  other  great  divines, 
whose  names  Bishop  Horsley  furnished  for  his  instruction." 
In  fact,  the  key  to  all  the  opposition  with  which  these  Epis- 
tles have  met,  is  to  be  found  in  the  following  assertion  of 
Mosheim :  "Those  who  wish  to  have  the  Epistles  of  Igna- 
tious  rejected,  are  principally  mcited  to  this  desire,  by  the 
frequent  occurrence  in  these  Epistles,  of  exhortations  to  obey 
the  bishops,  to  honor  the  presbyters,  and  to  remain  in  com- 
munion with  both :"  in  other  words — the  testimony  which 
they  bear  to  Episcopacy. 

Dr.  M.  asserts  that  my  charge  against  him  of  varying  in 
his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  authenticity  of  Ignatius 
"is  much  more  adapted  to  disgrace  myself  than  to  implicate 
his  veracity."  I  doubt,  whether,  after  what  I  have  said 
above,  any  intelligent  reader  will  agree  with  him.     I  did 


31 

but  quote  his  own  language,  and  left  it  to  the  reader  of  the 
Letter  to  judge  of  it  He  has,  however,  thought  it  necessary 
to  make  an  attempt  to  explain  his  opinions.  Let  us  see  how 
he  has  succeeded.     He  says : 

**That  a  little  more  discernment  would  have  shown  him  that  the 
inconsistencies  between  the  two  statements,*  on  the  face  of  them, 
without  further  explanation,  is  not  so  entire  and  irreconcileable  as 
he  seems  to  suppose.  May  it  not  be  true  that  the  Shorter  Epistles 
of  Ignatius  are  ''deemed  unworthy  of  confidence,  as  the  genuine 
(i.  e.  unadulterated — free  from  spurious  admixtures)  works  of  the 
author  whose  name  they  bear,  by  some  of  the  ablest  and  best 
judges  of  the  Protestant  world;  and  yet,  at  the  same  lime,  that 
the  great  body  (i.  e.  the  majority)  of  learned  men  consider  them 
as  in  the  main  (i.  e,  as  to  the  great  mass  of  their  contents)  as 
the  real  work  of  Ignatius?" 

However  little  may  be  the  discernment  which  he  allows 
to  me,  he  is  obliged  tacitly  to  admit,  that  there  is  inconsis- 
tency, though  he  thinks  not  entire  and  irreconcileable,  be- 
tween the  two  opinions  I  had  quoted  from  his  writings  in  re- 
lation to  Ignatius.  His  inuendoes,  however,  will  serve  him 
but  little.  As  the  passages  stand  in  connexion  with  the  con- 
text— in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  used  by  him  in  the 
books  from  which  they  are  quoted,  they  are  discordant,  and 
entirely  irreconcileable.  In  the  first  case,  his  object  plainly 
was  to  depreciate  the  authority  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles.  In 
the  second,  he  classes  them  with  testimony  weighty,  and 
worthy  of  peculiar  attention,  and  introduces  the  quota- 
tion thus:  "The  author  is  aware  that  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  has  feeen  called  in  question.  It  is  suffi- 
cient for  his  purpose  to  say  that  the  great  body  of  learned 
men  consider  them,"  &c.  If  there  be  any  way  of  recon- 
ciling these  two  passages,  it  is  by  saying  that  the  great  body 
(the  majority)  of  learned  men  admit,  in  the  main,  while 

♦His  opinions  on  this  subject  as  expressed  in  1807  and  1821. 
See  page  22. 


S2 

some  (a  f^ew)  of  the  ablest  and  best  judges  deny,  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Epistles.  But,  unfortunately  for  Dr.  M., 
such  an  explanation  of  his  expressions  will  only  show  that 
he  was  in  doubt  on  which  side  to  lean,  and  that  he  adopted, 
for  the  time,  that  which  would  be  sufficient  for  his  immedi- 
ate purpose.  But,  yet  more  unfortunately  for  him,  only  a 
few  years  later,  either' himself,  or  his  "great  majority  of  the 
learned,"  had  changed  their  views,  for  then  he  was  confident 
that  "intelligent  readers  were  aware  that  the  genuineness  of 
these  Epistles  had  been  called  in  question  [not  by  some\ 
but  by  a  great  majority  of  Protestant  divines ;  and  is  not 
only  really  but  deeply  questionable^^'*  And  more  unfortu- 
nately still,  in  the  last  work  which  came  from  his  pen,  to 
satisfy  the  members  of  his  own  church  that  "the  system  by 
which  they  are  distinguished,  is  throughout,  truly  primitive 
and  apostolic,"  he  cites  portions  of  those  very  passages,  on 
which,  if  Episcopalians  should  ask  him  to  point  out  interpo- 
lations, he  would  place  his  finger,  because  they  are  cited 
truly  and  entirely  by  them  on  behalf  of  Episcopacy — he 
cites  portions  of  those  very  passages  without  the  expression 
of  the  slightest  doubt  of  their  authenticity!  It  is  true,  he 
says  in  his  communication  to  the  American  Presbyterian, 
that  when  he  so  quotes  Ignatius  in  his  late  Tract  as  au- 
thority, "there  is  nothing  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  judg- 
ment expressed  by  him  in  either  of  the  foregoing  publica- 
ions,"  but  he  is  probably  the  only  man  living  who  will  think 
so. 

III.  The  third  point  in  Dr.  M's.  communication  in  the 
American  Presbyterian  is  ihws  stated  by  him: 

"Another  charge,  which  your  correspondent  alleges  with  much  in- 
dignant zeal,  and  apparent  astonishment,  IS,  that  I  have  said,  in  my 
Tract  on  Presbyterianism,  that  Episcopalians  not  only  are  not  able  to 
find  any  warrant  for  their  claim  in  Scripture,  but  that  they  do  not  so 
much  as  pretend  to  find  any.  And  this  he  alleges  I  have  done  in  a 
Tract  which  contains  a  distinct  reference  to  a  little  work  by   an 


33 

Episcopal  writer,  entitled  'Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture.*  The 
charge  is  a  slander.  I  have  said  no  such  thing  as  he  ascribes  to  me, 
in  the  passage  to  which  he  refers;  although,  for  want  either  of 
attention  or  discernment,  he,  no  doubt,  so  construed  the  passage. 
The  following  is  my  language;  'When  we  ask  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy  whence  they  derive  their  favorite  doctrine  that  diocesan 
bishops  succeed  the  apostles  in  the  appropriate  powers  and  pre- 
eminence of  their  apostolic  character,  they  refer  us  to  no  passages  of 
scripture,  asserting  or  even  hinting  it;  but  to  some  equivocal  sug- 
gestions and  allusions  of  several  fathers,  who  wrote  within  the  first 
four  or  five  hundred  years  after  Christ." 

On  this  point  Dr.  M,  obviously  labored  under  no  small 
degree  of  irritation.  He  accuses  me  of  gross  misrepresenta- 
tion— he  calls  me  a  reckless  adversary,  &c.  and  yet,  in  the 
Letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  American  Presbyterian,  I  only 
quoted  his  own  language,  just  as  he  has  quoted  it  above,  as 
the  following  extract  from  page  7th  will  show : 

"You  give  us  an  unexceptionable  statement  of  the  received 
doctrine  of  Episcopacy,  and  add,  'to  no  part  of  this  claim;'  that  is, 
the  claim  of  Episcopalians  that  their  church  constitution  is  primitive 
and  apostolic;  'does  the  New  Testament  afford  the  least  counte- 
nance.' You  say  that  Episcopacy  is  'a  usurpation  for  which  there 
is  not  the  smallest  warrant  in  the  word  of  God:'  that  'there  is  not 
the  semblance  of  support  to  be  found  in  Scripture  for  the  alleged 
transmission  of  the  pre-eminent  and  peculiar  power  of  the  apostles 
to  a  set  of  ecclesiastical  successors:  that  'when  we  ask  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy  whence  they  derive  their  favorite  doctrine, 
that  diocesan  bishops  succeed  the  apostles  in  the  appropriate 
powers  and  pre-eminence  of  their  apostolic  character,  they 
refer  us  to  no  passages  of  Scripture  asserting  or,  even  hiyxting 
it:^  that,  Ht  is  not  so  much  as  pretended  that  a  passage  is  to 
be  found,  which  gives  a  hint  of  this  kind -.^^ 

I  make,  it  is  true,  the  following  inference  from  these  ex- 
pressions, and  you  can  judge  whether  it  is,  in  the  smallest 
particular,  unwarranted: 

"The  plain  meaning  of  these  assertions  is,  that,  in  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Miller,  and  the  editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian,  Episco- 


34 

palians  not  only  cannot  find  any  countenance  in  Scripture 
for  their  doctrine  of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
but  they  do  not  even  make  pretensions  to  do  so.^^ 

And  I  add,  on  'a  subseqnent  page: 

"But,  at  the  very  time  that  Dr.  Miller  made  his  singularly  bold 
declaration,  that  w' en  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  are  asked 
whence  they  derive  their  favorite  doctrine,  *they  refer  us  to  no 
passages  of  Scripture  asserting,  or  even  hinting  it;  but  to  some 
equivocal  suggestions  and  allusion  of  several  Fathers,  who  wrote 
within  the  first  four  or  five  hundred  years  after  Christ,'  he  certainly 
had  before  him,  for  he  quotes  it  just  before,  a  little  work  by  Bis  hop 
Onderdonk  of  Pennsylvania;  which  he  eould  not  but  know,  is  ex- 
tensively approved  of  among  Episcopalians,  in  this  country,  with  the 
very  title  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture.^' 

Yet  Dr.  M.  calls  my  inference  a  slander!  He  says  that 
he  has  said  no  suck  thing  as  I  ascribe  to  him!  This 
charge  surely  requires  no  farther  notice  from  me.  Let  us 
pass  to  the  next. 

IV.  Dr.  MiUer  says: 

•"Your  correspondent  further  represents  me  as  misquoting  Igna- 
tius, and  as  making  a  disingenuous  use  of  my  quotations*  from 
the  Father.  The  same  charge  was  made  by  Dr.  Cooke,  of 
Kentucky,  five  or  six  years  ago;  and  though  clearly  shown,  in 
the  Biblical  Repertory,  in  a  review  of  Dr  Cooke's  work,  to  be 
false,  it  has  been  since  copied  and  repeated,  by  almost  every 
Episcopal  writer  who  has  been  pleased  to  notice  me,  from  that  day 
to  this.  The  charge  however,  I  again  assert,  is  false — utterly  false; 
and  those  who  have  repeated  it,  have  lent  themselves  to  the  propa- 
gation of  slander. 

This  paragraph  certainly  does  not  manifest  much  of  that 
christian  spirit  and  conduct  which  Dr.  M.  highly  commends 
at  the  conclusion  of  his  paper;  and  contains  some  evidence 
that  the  subject  is  one  on  which  his  mind  has  become  very 
sensitive.  Tliore  is  siaie  r.^as  )n  for  this,  perhaps,  in  the 
fiict,  that  his  great  disingenuousness  in  his  quotations  from 
Ignatius,  has  had  a  very  great  influence  in  depriving  him  of 


35 

that  respect,  which  men  of  all  sorts  are  generally  ready  to 
extend  to  a  fair  and  reasonable  opponent.  Dr.  M.  has  cer- 
tainly long  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  such  by  Episcopalians 
throughout  the  country.  This  is  manifest  from  his  own 
language  in  the  above  extract. 

Dr.  M.  says  that  this  charge,  as  originally  made  by  Dr. 
CooJce  of  Kentucky,  was  clearly  shown  to  be  false,  in  the 
Biblical  Repertory.  But  Dr.  M.  is  a  little  too  hasty  in  this 
matter:  the  charge  is,  unfortunately,  too  true  to  be  dis- 
proved ;  and  so  Dr.  Cooke  showed  in  his  Reply  to  the  Bibli- 
cal Repertory,  which  is  accessible  to  every  reader.  But 
Dr.  Cooke  needs  no  assistance  from  me  in  this  matter,  and  I 
shall  only  notice  this  charge  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  The 
following  is  the  passage  of  the  Letter  which  has  brought  this 
phial  of  wrath  upon  my  head : 

"If  Dr.  Miller  fails  of  convincing  his  readers,  it  will  not 
be  for  want  of  bold  assertions — bold,  beyond  those  of  any 
other  polemic  with  whom  I  am  acquainted — bold  beyond 
any  warrant  of  testimony,  or  the  previously  declared  opinions 
of  any  other  assailant  of  Episcopacy.  He  says,  *It  is  very 
certain  that  the  Fathers  who  flourished  nearest  the  apos- 
tolic age,  generally  represent  presbyters  and  not  prelates 
(bishops)  as  the  successors  of  apostles,"'  and  he  actually 
has  the  rashness  to  quote  Ignatius — that  identical  father^ 
whose  writings  are  genuine,  or  not  genuine — worthy,  or  not 
worthy  of  confidence,  according  as  he  may  be  made  to 
serve  the  purpose  to  which  Dr.  Miller  chooses  to  apply  him  I 
How  little  he  is  able  to  make  use  of  him  in  assailinn- 
Episcopacy,  let  the  following  exhibition  of  the  manner  in 
Nvhich  his  quotations  are  made,  and  of  Ignatius'  own  state- 
ments show : 


36 


Dr.  Miller  quotes  him  as 
saying 

The  presbyters  succeed  in  the 
place  of  the  bench  of  the  upos- 
tles. 


The  passage   truly   copied  is 


I  exhort  you,  that  ye   study  to 
do  all  things  in  a  divine  concord: 
your  bishops  in  the  place  of  God; 
your  presbyters  in  the  place  of  the 
council  of  the  apostles;  and  your 
deacons  most  dear  to  me  being 
entrusted    with    the  ministry   of 
Jesus  Christ* — Ep.   to    Magne- 
sians. 
AGAIN. 
In  like  manner  let  all  rever- 
ence the    presbyters  as    the  San- 
hedrim  of  God,  and   college   of 


the  apostles. 


In  like  manner  let  all  rever- 
ence the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ; 
and  the  bishop  as  the  Father, 
and  the  presbyters  as  tho  Sanhe- 
drim of  God,  and  college  of  the 
apostles;  without  these  there  is 
no  Church, — Ep.  to  Trallians. 
AGAIN. 


Be  subject  to  your  presbyters 
as  to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  hope. 


It  is  therefore  necessary,  that 

as  ye  do,  so  without  your  bishop 

you  should  do  nothing:  also  be  ye 

subject  to  your  presbyters,  as  the 

apostles  of  Jesus  Clirist  our  hope, 

in  whom  if  we  walk,  we  shall  be 

found    in    him.      The    deacons, 

also,  as  being   ministers  of  Jesus 

Christ,  &c. — Ep.  to   Trallians 

AGAIN. 

Follow  the  Presbyters  as  the        See  that   ye    all  follow    your 

apostles.  bishop  as  Jesus  Christ  the  Father; 

and  the  presbyters  as  the  apos- 
tles.— Ep.  to  Smijrneans. 
The  feeblest  capacity  can  judge  of  the  integrity  of  these 
quotations  of  Dr.  Miller.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  his 
object  is  to  show  reasons  for  rejecting  Episcopacy;  or,  as  he 
calls  it,  prelacy — rejecting  the  belief  that  three  orders, 
(bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,)  were  established  in  the  chris- 
tian ministry  by  the  apostles.  Was  there  ever  a  more  un- 
faithful application  of  any  man's  written  opinions?  Dr.  M. 
omits  the  facts  to  which  Ignatius  actually  does  testify,  and 
changes  a  high  wrought,  fanciful,  and  unreasonable  com- 


37 

parhon,  which  the  unbridled  zeal  of  Ignatius  led  him  to 
make,  into  an  allegation  oi^  facts;  of  such  facts  too,  as  stand 
diametrically  opposed  to  Ignatius*  own  testimony'.'' 

Yet  Dr.  M.  says:  "It  is  still  my  deliberate  conviction  that 
I  gave  a  fair  specimen  of  that  testimony  from  the  father  in 
question,  which  Episcoj^al  writers  are  accustomed  to  quote 
as  favoring  their  cause"! 

2.  He  says,  tiiat  "a  ground  of  this  charge  of  unfair  deaU 
ing  with  Ignatius  is,  that  I  allege  that  he  every  where  re- 
presents the  Presbyters,  and  not  the  Bishops,  as  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles.  Bat  is  it  not  literally  and  strictly 
true  that  Ignatius  does,  in  every  instance,  make  the  precise 
statement  which  I  have  alleged?  He  often  speaks  of  Bi- 
shops, Presbyters  and  Deacons ;  but,  so  far  as  I  recollect, 
in  all  cases  in  which  he  speaks  of  succession  at  all,  he  re- 
presents the  Presbyters  as  succeeding  in  the  place  of  the 
Apostles."' 

In  the  parts  of  sentences  which  Dr.  Miller  has  quoted 
from  Ignatius  in  his  Tract — and  it  is  proper  that  I  should 
state  that  the  above  four  are  all  which  I  could  find  in  that 
part  of  the  Tract  which  treats  of  church  government — it 
would,  most  probably,  be  inferred,  by  readers  generally, 
that  Ignatius  did  mean  to  represent  presbyters  as  successors 
of  the  apostles  J  but  will  any  reader  say,  that  such  an  infer- 
ence can  be  drawn  from  the  entire  sentences,  as  presented 
above?  Does  Ignatius  really  represent  presbyters  as  the 
successors  of  the  apostles  in  any  other  sense  than  he  re- 
presents bishops  as  successors  of  God,  the  Father;  and 
the  deacons  as  the  successors  of  Jesus  Christ?  Does  he,  in 
fact,  speak  of  succession  at  all  in  those  passages?  Is  not 
the  very  language  of  the  first  quotation,  unwarrantably  al- 
tered by  Dr.  M.,  that  it  may  express  that  idea  ? 

Dr.  M.  asks  if  he  has,  in  these  quotations  from  Ignatius, 


3S 

"kept  back  any  thing  which  he  ought  to  have  stated  ?"  Un- 
deniably he  has.  Could  he  have  been  ignorant  that  he  was 
not  givingj^air  and  full  quotations  from  Ignatius,  when  he 
has  actually  quoted  the  same  passages  in  full,  as  above  given 
by  me,  when  it  suited  his  purpose,  in  his  Essay  on  the  office 
of  Ruling  Elder?  (p.  78-79.) 

Dr.  M.  is,  it  seems,  very  thoroughly  convinced,  that  Igna- 
tius "is  every  where  describing  pi^eshyterianism  and  not  dio- 
cesan episcopacy,  as  the  form  of  church  government  which 
existed  in  his  day."  He  is,  indeed,  so  deeply  persuaded, 
that  he^has  entirely  overlooked  the  absurdity  of  such  a  view, 
though  often  pressed  upon  him.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  here, 
that  common  sense  repels  the  idea,  that  presbyters  could  be 
at  the  same  time  successors  of  the  apostles,  whose  exercise 
of  the  ministry  is  unquestioned,  and  yet  be,  on  Dr.  M's. 
theory — mere  lay  elders — representatives  of  the  people — not 
entitled  to  exercise  the  ministry .  that  the  office  of  pastor 
should  be  necessary  to  the  church,  and  yet  have  no  prototype 
in  the  apostolic  age.  But  I  refer  you  to  my  observations  on 
this  point,  at  p.  36,  of  the  Letter  to  the  American  Presbyte- 
rian, as  a  conclusive  answer,  in  few  words,  to  all  that  Dr. 
M.  can  allege  on  this  subject. 

Dr.  M.  concludes  his  fourth  charge,  with  the  following 
very  singular  statement:  "If  your  correspondent  does  not 
understand  how  the  Presbyters  or  Elders  spoken  of  by  Igna- 
tius could  have  been  'Ruling  Elders,''  on  the  Presbyterian 
plan,  as  most  of  them,  if  not  all,  probably  were,  (an  idea 
which,  it  would  seem,  appears  to  him  unspeakably  ridicu- 
lous) I  can  only  say  that  he  is  not  yet  competent  to  discuss 
the  subject  on  which  he  has  undertaken  to  instruct  the  pub- 
lic." Perhaps  my  discernment  may  be  at  fault,  but  I  can 
only  understand  him  as  declaring  here,  that,  if  I  cannot 
adopt  his  views,  in  relation  to  Ignatius,  I  am  incompetent  to 
discuss  the  subject  of  Episcopacy;  or,  in  other  words,  that 


39 

lam  incompetent  to  defend  the  opinions  which  I  have  delib- 
erately and  understandingly  adopted,  against  an  assailant 
who  is  inaccessible  to  argument— contemptuous  to  his  op- 
ponents— unfaithful  in  his  quotations — variable  in  his  own 
opinions  to  suit  his  purpose — and  intolerant  of  all  opinions 
but  his  own! 

V.  The  next  point  on  svhich  Dr.  M.  dilates  is  an  incidental 
remark  in  the  Letter  &c.  that  he  uses  the  term  prelacy,  in 
reference  to  the  simple  form  of  apostolical  Episcopacy,  as 
contended  for  by  us,  "in  defiance  of  the  usage  of  all  good 
writers  and  of  all  Episcopalians  especially."  I  laid  but 
little  stress  on  this  matter;  and  it  must  have  required  some 
diligence  on  his  part  to  hunt  it  out,  amidst  much  other  mat- 
ter which  called  for  his  attention,  but  which  he  has  thought  it 
expedient  to  overlook.  My  allegation,  howeve r,  was — though 
it  did  not  suit  him  so  to  present  it — that  "in  defiance  of  the 
usage  of  all  good  writers,  and  of  all  Episcopalians  especially, 
he  continually  substitutes  it  for  episcopacy P  He  could 
not,  whatever  he  may  say  ad  captandum  on  the  subject,  have 
supposed,  that  I  meant  to  insinuate  that  this  term  is  not  used 
occasionally  by  good  writers,  especially  in  reference  to  cer- 
tain modifications  of  episcopacy.  But  he  does  not  give  me 
credit  for  perceiving,  what  requires  no  very  strong  vision, 
that  he  earnestly  covets  the  term  Episcopacy  for  his  own 
church  system;  and  that  he  has  discovered  that  the  fathers 
and  founders  of  English  and  American  presby  terianism,  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  made  a  very  great  mistake  when 
they,  warily  as  they  thought,  but  unwarily  as  Dr.M.  doubt- 
less thinks,  adopted  a  name,  which  forever  compels  their 
successors  to  defend  their  ecclesiastical  system  apart  from 
the  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  history.  This  is  apparent  in 
his  laborious  struggles  to  wrest  Ignatius  as  a  witness  on  his 
own  side.  He  knows,  and  every  one  knows,  who  has  read 
the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  that  they  testify  to  a  form  of  epis- 


40 

copacy  wholly  distinct  from  the  form  of  preshytery  as  ori- 
ginally established:  that  he  speaks  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons,  as  orders  o^the  ministry,  actually  exercising  its 
offices;  and  does  not,  like  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
the  Form  of  Government  of  his  own  church,  term  the  last 
two,  representatives  of  the  people  merely.  But,  in  his  book 
on  the  office  of  Lay  Elder,  he  strives  hard,  both  to  bring 
scriptural  and  other  testimony  in  favor  of  that  office;  and  to 
elevate  it  by  forms  of  ordination,  and  by  strong  descriptions 
of  its  importance,  dignity,  and  necessity,  into  a  much  nearer 
alliance  with  the  presbyters  of  Ignatius,  that  it  has  ever  yet 
had.  Hence  it  is  that  he  is  now  desirous  of  availing  him- 
self of  a  term  consecrated  to  an  invariable  sense  by  eccle- 
siastical history,  and  by  the  uniform  usage  of  ecclesiastical 
writers.  What  writer  before  Dr.  Miller  ever  dignified  parity 
with  the  title  of  episcopacy?  Who  does  not  know  that  the 
English  puritans,  of  the  days  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
gloried  in  the  name  of  Presbyterian  as  opposed  to  Episco- 
pal? And  even  in  the  Constitution  of  the  American  Presby- 
terian church,  so  far  from  claiming  the  term  bishop  as  in- 
disputably indicative  of  the  pasto7'al  office,  it  is  modestly,  de- 
clared that  this  title  ^^ought  not  be  rejected.''''  Note  to  ch.  IV. 
But  Dr .  M.  also  very  well  knows,  that,  while  in  "its  deriva- 
tion and  meaning,"  the  term  prelacy  has  the  sense  of  epis- 
copacy, yet  a  sense  has  been  attached  to  it,  such  as  he  ap- 
pears to  desire  should  continue  with  it,  conveying  odium 
to  the  popular  mind.  He,  lam  confident,  has  not  forgotten 
the  Covenant  made  in  a  certain  country,  "against  popery, 
prelacy,  and  superstition,  and  to  uphold  the  gospel  f  nor 
can  he  need  to  be  reminded  of  the  definition  given  to  it  by 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  of  "church  government  by  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  deans,  and  chapters,  and  all  other  ecclesi- 
astical officers  depending  on  that  hierarchy;"  or  even  of  the 
more  recent  distinction,  made  by  the  Idte  commentator  Tho- 


41 

mas  Scott,  Avhen  he  said,  in  one  of  his  letters :  "I  am  an  Epi^ 
copalian,  but  not  a  prelatist."  Neither  can  Dr.  M.  suppose, 
that  he  makes  the  term  more  acceptable  to  us,  at  his  hands, 
though  he  calls  it  respectful,  when  the  analogy  which  he 
presents,  is  that  of  the  application  of  the  terms  Papist  and 
Socinian,  to  bodies  which  uniformly  resent  their  use.  He 
says,  however,  that  in  some  form  a  distinction  '^ougJit  to  be 
made,  and  must  be  made  in  the  use  of  the  term  Episcopacy ;" 
an  assertion  which  proves  yet  more  strongly,  the  difficulties 
which  press  on  his  mind,  when  he  reflects,  that  in  its 
long  contmued  and  exclusive  application,  by  writers  of 
every  description,  to  what  he  calls  the  prelaiical  church, 
that  church  has  an  advantage,  which  his  own,  by  the 
deliberate  disavowal  of  it  can  never  hope  to  possess. — 
Dr.  M.  has  no  warrant  whatever,  for  applying  this  term  to 
the  Presbyterian  system,  nor  is  the  word  to  be  found  at  all 
in  the  Form  of  Government  of  the  Presbyterian  church.* 

Dr.M.  drags  in,  rather  awkwardly, — for  the  sake  probably 
of  giving  more  point  to  his  remarks  on  this  head, — from 
some  querulous  puritan,  whom  he  calls,  "a  venerable 
old  writer,"  the  following  classification — "Divine  Episcopa- 
cy,"— by  which,  it  seems,  is  meant,  not  episcopacy,  but 
presbytenanism:  "2d.  Human  episcopacy," — by  which  he 

*I  am  suslaiiied,  I  think,  in  tiiis  viiw  of  the  subject  by  Dr.  M. 
himself,  when  he  says:  "Our  Episcopal  brethren  are  food  of  having 
a  title  applied  to  them  which  would  convey  the  idea  that  they 
alone  have  Bishops.  Now  it  is  v?ell  known  that  Presbyterians 
claim  to  have  bishops  as  well  as  they.  And  what  is  worthy  of  par- 
ticular notice,  Presbyterians  now  use  the  title,  not  to  designate 
prelates,  but  plain  pastors  of  churches."  It  is  believed  that  there  is 
no  instance  on  record  of  the  European  Presbyterian  reformers  desig- 
nating their  "plain  pastors  of  churches"  by  this  title.  Through  all 
ecclesiastical  history,  from  Clement  of  Rome  down  to  our  own 
times,  this  term  has  but  one  sense — 'hat  now  givsa  to  it  by  Episco- 
palians, and  by  most  Presbyterian  writers  also. 
4* 


42 

means  that  episcopacy,  which  the  Fathers  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal history  represent  as  established  by  the  Apostles:  and 
"3d.  Diabolical  Episcopacy — referring  to  the  papal  sys- 
tem." Dr.  Miller  certainly  explains  the  terms  according  to 
his  theory,  while  I  have  ventured  to  conform  them  to  the 
facts.  Perhaps  he  will  be  willing  to  take  a  quotation  from 
another  "venerable  old  writer,"  who  says,  that  "some  pre- 
tended in  his  day  to  derive  presbytery  from  Jelhro,  in  his 
humble  petition  and  advice  to  Moses  concerning  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Jews.  It  is  well  that  we  see  from  whence  it 
came,  even  from  Midian,  an  heathenish  place,  and  unac- 
quainted with  the  true  worship  of  God,  then  confined  only 
to  the  Jews,"  S^c.  Suppose  that  I  should  apply  to  Dr.  M. 
his  own  remark,  and  ask  him  whether  the  expression  applied 
by  this  "venerable  old  writer"  to  his  system,  "would  suit 
him  better"? 

In  relation,  however,  to  the  use  of  the  term  Bishop,  I 
must  mention  a  fact,  which,  in  this  connexion,  it  seems 
to  me,  deserves  to  be  recorded.  Previously  to  the  American 
Revolution,  the  members  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  this 
country,  were  obliged  to  send  all  their  candidates  for  the 
ministry  to  England,  for  ordination;  being  prevented  by  ac- 
tive and  persevering  efforts  on  the  part  of  some  in  this  coun- 
try, and  in  England,  from  having  resident  Bishops.  The 
evil  was  deeply  and  strongly  felt,  as  it  deprived  them  of  some 
of  their  dearest  religious  privileges.  At  a  period  immediate- 
ly before  the  Revolution,  there  was  some  probability  that  their 
repeated  petitions,  appeals,  and  remonstrances,  would  be 
heard,  and  that  they  would  be  allowed  to  place  themselves  on 
an  equal  footing  with  other  religious  denominations.  It  was 
expected  that  one  of  the  bishops  who  were  then  to  be  appoint- 
ed, would  reside  at  Burlington,  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Dela- 
ware. Such,  however,  was  the  feeling  excited  among  tiie 
opponents  of  episcopacy,  that  threats  were  openly  made  in 


43 

Philadelphia,  that,  instead  of  a  Bishop  being  allowed  to  re- 
side on  the  banks  of  the  Delaware,  he  should  actually  be 
put  into  the  river!  When, after  the  revolution,  the  General 
Convention  of  the  Episcopal  church  determined  to  obtain 
the  Episcopal  office,  it  was  seriously  proposed  to  change  the 
name  of  Bishop  tor  one  less  odious  to  the  opponents  of  epis- 
copacy; and  when  the  present  venerable  Bishop  White  re- 
turned home,  after  having  been  consecrated  a.  Bishoj),  he 
was  earnestly  advised,  even  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  to  be 
cautious  how,  with  his  new  character,  he  exposed  his  person'. 
What  a  change  has  he  lived  to  see  in  this  respect  I  The  ab- 
horred name  is  now  coveted  on  every  side !  x-ili  who  pretend 
to  the  ministry  among  the  sects  of  which  our  country  may 
be  said  to  be  fertile,  are  willing  now  at  least  to  share  with  us; 
and  Dr.  Miller,  it  seems,  is  even  desirous  todeprive  us  of  a  name, 
which,  a  generation  since,  all  were  equally  willing  to  leave 
to  our  exclusive  possession;  and  were  equally  ready  to  rep- 
resent as  too  odious  to  be  endured  I 
VI.  Dr.  x\I.  says  that 

"Ax  Episcopalian"  utterly  misconceives  and  misrepresents 
the  use  which  I  make  of  Dr.  Barrow.  I  never  thooght  of  intima- 
ting that  he  was  not  a  behever  in  the  divine  right  of  Prelacy.  It 
never  entered  in  my  mind  that  such  a  construction  would  be  pnt  up- 
on what  I  said  concerning  him,  by  any  human  being.  It  was 
enough  for  tny  purpose  to  cite  his  opinion  and  his  proof,  that  the 
apostles,  as  such,  and  in  their  pre-eminent  character,  had  and  could 
have,  no  successors.  This  was  my  sole  object  in  quoting  him.  And 
whatever  your  correspondent  may  think  of  his  judgment  as  bearing 
on  this  point,  I  am  confident  that  no  impartial  inquirer  will  fail  to 
feel  its  force,  and  admit  i:s  conclusiveness." 

Now  the  truth  is,  that  so  far  from  my  misconceiving  and 
misrepresenting  Dr.  M,  it  is  himself  who  misconceives  and 
misrepresents  both  Dr.  Barrow  and  myself,  as  the  "impartial 
inquirer"  may  easily  perceive. 

Ist.  He  misconceives  and  misrepresents  Dr.  Barrow,  for 


44 

Br.  B.  in  the  very  passage  which  Dr.  Miller  quotes,  when  he 
represents  the  ^^apostolical  office'''  as  "not  successive,  not 
communicable  to  others,"  means,,  as  he  himself  states,  "that 
such  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many  extraordinary  privileges, 
and  iniraculous powers,  which  were  requisite  for  the  founda- 
tion of  the  church,  was  not  designed  to  continue  by  deriva- 
tion, for  it  contained  in  it  divers  things  which  apparently  were 
not  communicated,  and  which  no  man,  without  gross  impo- 
siture  and  hypocrisy,  could  challenge  to  himself P  Now 
Dr.  M.  must  certainly  well  know,  that  Episcopalians  have 
never  contended  that  Bishops  were  the  successors  of  Apos- 
tles in  their  extraordinary  privileges  and  miraculous  powers, 
but  only  in  the  peculiar  and  pre-eminent  po»vers  of  ordina- 
tion and  government.  He  ought  to  know,  also,  that  Dr.  Bar- 
row cannot  be  understood  to  mean,  that  the  Apostles  had  no 
successors  in  these  two  "peculiar  and  pre-eminent"  parts  of 
their  office.  If,  therefore,  he  understands  Dr.  B.  in  the 
quotation  he  makes  from  him,  as  denying  that  Bishops  are 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  except  in  their  extraordinary 
privileges  and  miraculous  powers,  he  certainly  misconceives 
him;  and  when  he  represents,  as  he  plainly  does  in  his  Tract, 
"the  judgment  of  this  able  and  learned  prelatist,  concerning 
the  foundation  of  the  whole  argument"  of  Episcopalians,  as 
opposed  to  their  doctrine  that  Bishops  succeeded  the  Apostles 
in  the  peculiar  and  pre-eminent  powers  of  ordination  and 
government,  he  certainly  very  grossly  misrepresents  him. 
Dr.  Barrow  unquestionably  maintains  this  doctrine;  and  any 
Episcopalian  may  very  safely  subscribe  to  the  sentiments  in 
Dr.  M's.  quotation,  when  viewed  apart  from  the  statements 
with  which  Dr.  M.  has  introduced  it  in  his  Tract. 

2d.  But  Dr.  M.  misconceives  and  misrepresents  me  also. 
He  says,  "I  never  thought  of  intimating  that  Dr.  Barrow  was 
not  a  believer  in  the  divine  right  of  prelacy.  It  never  en- 
tered my  mind  that  such  a  construction  would  be  put  upon 


45 

what  I  said  concerning  him,  by  any  human  being/'  It  is 
sufficient  in  reply  to  say,  that  I  did  not  charge  him  with  de- 
nying that  Dr.  B.  did  not  beheve  in  the  divine  right  of  jm- 
lacy.  My  language  was:  "Dr.  M.  quotes  a  passage  from 
Dr.  Barrow  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  Dr.  B.  did  not 
consider  the  Apostles  as  having  a«3^  regular  successors: — 
Dr.  M.  seems  to  have  intended  that  his  readers  should  infer 
that  Dr.  Barrow  did  not  himself  believe  in  the  apostolic  ori- 
gin of  Episcopacy."  If  Dr.  M.,  when  he  represents  Dr.  B. 
as  denying  that  the  Apostles  had  successors  in  their  pre-em- 
inent and  peculiar  powers,  meant  merely  to  show,  that  "as 
men  endowed  with  the  gifts  of  miracles  and  inspiration,  who 
were,  prior  to  the  completion  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, constituted  the  infallible  guides  of  the  church,  they 
had  no  successors;*''  as  Episcopalians  participate  with  him 
in  this  opinion,  there  was  no  reason  for  his  quoting  Dr.  B., 
or  any  one  else;  but  his  evident  jnirpose  was,  to  rep- 
resent Dr.  B.  as  opposed  to  the  Episcopal  view  of  apos- 
tolic succession; — he  evidently  designed  that  his  reader 
should  so  understand  it;  and  I  have  of  course  neither  mis- 
conceived nor  misrepresented  him. 

VII.  We  come  now  to  the  case  of  the  Waldenses.  Dr. 
M.  says  that  I  "still  insist  that  the  Waldenses  had  episcopa- 
cy established  among  them."  He  adds:  "It  really  surpri- 
ses me  that  after  the  testimony  which  has  been  adduced, 
that  point  should  be  any  longer  questioned."  Wonderful  in- 
deed, that  any  one  should  presume  to  question  what  Dr.  Al. 
chooses  to  think  settled!  But  w^here,  let  me  ask, is  this  testi- 
mony adduced?  Is  it  by  Dr.  M.  himself,  in  his  Letters  on 
the  Ministry?  SureH  that  had  received  a  sufficient  refuta- 
tion, for  any  mind  open  to  conviction,  by  Dr.  Bowden,  Ion;; 
since.  At  any  rate.  Dr.  Bowden  quoted  competent  authori- 
ties against  Dr.  M.  of  whom  he  now  takes  no  notice.  In  my 
Letter  to  the  American  Presbyterian^  I  quoted  in   favor  of 


46 

the  episcopal  character  of  the  ancient  Waldensian  church, 
Mosheim;  Pep  rani,  one  oi^  their  own  writers;  the  London 
Christian  Observer,  the  same  work  which  Dr.  M.  refers  to 
in  what  he  says  of  Ignatius;  and  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson, 
a  Presbyterian  clergyman,  of  great  talent,  industry,  and  re- 
search, formerly  of  Philadelphia.  As  only  one  of  these 
writers,  (the  Observer)  was  Episcopal,  I  supposed  I  had 
quoted  learned,  impartial,  and  competent  authorities.  Dr. 
M.  says,  that  he  considers  the  witnesses  he  has  addu- 
ced, "as  better  authority  than  any  which  1  have  arrayed 
against  them.'"  I  propose  therefore  briefly  to  examine  this 
subject. 

It  is  necessary  to  state,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  the  year 
1630,  the  vallies  of  Piedmont,  where  the  Waldenses  dwell, 
and  from  which  they  derive  their  name,  were  visited  by 
a  plague,  which  swept  off  a  large  proportion  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  all  their  ministers,  with  the  exception  of  two 
who  had  retired  from  the  work,  in  extreme  age.  At 
this  period,  they  obtained  an  immediate  supply  of  Presby- 
terian ministers  from  France  and  Switzerland,  who  belonged 
to  the  Calvinistic  church.  It  is  distinctly  admitted,  that,  sub- 
sequently to  that  period,  the  form  of  the  ministry  among 
them  has  been  Presbyterian.  Butihatit  was  so  previously  to 
this  period,  and  through  the  most  important  part  of  their 
history  as  a  church,  is  as  distmctly  denied.  From  that  per- 
iod upwards,  to  the  time  of  Pope  Sylvester,  and  the  Emper- 
or Constantino  the  Great,  as  far  as  they  can  trace  their  his- 
tory, their  ministry  was  Episcopal."^  Dr.  Miller  wholly 
overlooks  this  distinction;  and  finding  that  all  accounts  agree 

*The  only  historian  of  the  Waldenses  prior  to  this  period  was  Per- 
rin,  pastor  of  a  church  at  Lyons,  in  France.  As  the  subject  before 
ns  was  not  a  disputed  one  in  his  day,  his  work  containa  no  precise  infor 
mation  in  regard  to  it. 


47 

that  their  ministry^  is  now,  and  through  its  modern  portion 
substantially  Presbyterian,  he  infers  that  it  has  always  been 
so,  and  will  meddle  with  no  testimony  which  cannot,  in  some 
way,  be  made  to  sustain  his  views.  For  this  reason  the 
learning  of  such  men  as  Usher,  Allix,  Peyrani,  Mosheim 
and  Sims,  has  been  arrayed  before  him  to  no  purpose. 

I  propose  to  present  such  testimony  as  I  have  been  able  to 
collect  from  the  few  works  within  my  reach,  to  the  episco- 
pal character  of  the  Waldenses,  and  then  to  examine  the 
weight  of  the  opposing  testimonies  on  which  Dr.  Miller  re- 
lies for  denying  that  character  to  them. 

1st.  The  earliest  writers,  in  relation  to  the  Waldenses, 
were  Roman  Catholics,  and  consequently  their  enemies. 
Their  testimony  on  the  point  before  us  varies  much.  Usher, 
in  his  work  on  the  succession  of  the  Western  churches,  has 
collected  and  compared  their  conflicting  assertions,  and  has 
shown  that,  according  to  one,  they  permit  laymen  to  con- 
secrate the  elements;  according  to  another,  consecration  is 
the  work  of  the  priesthood ;  of  which  according  to  another, 
there  were  actually  three  orders.  Bresse,  one  of  their 
own  historians,  says  in  his  History,  that  Pope  Eneas  Sylvi- 
us said  of  the  Waldenses,  that  one  of  their  doctrines  was 
that  "the  Bishop  of  Rome,  is  not  superior  to  other  Bishops.'^'* 
Jones,  an  English  anti-episcopal  writer,  professedly  quoting 
the  same  work  of  Eneas  Sylvius,  represents  him  as  alleging, 
that  the  Waldenses  held  "that  the  Pope  of  Rome  is  not  su 
perior  to  Bishops,  and  that  there  is  no  difference  among 
priesU?'' 

Bresse,  in  his  History  above  quoted,  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Discipline  of  the  Vaudois  church,  distinctly  marks  the  change 
which  occurred  at  the'period  above  named.  He  says :  "The 
public  worship  was  always  celebrated  in  the  Vaudois  lan- 
guage, till  1630,  when  a  pestilence  swept  off  the  whole  of 
the  barbes  (pastors)  with  the  exception  of  two,  who  wer« 


48 

inefficient  from  age.  In  consequence,  pastors  were  invited 
to  come  from  France  and  Geneva. — In  the  holy^sacraments, 
the  bread  v/as,  until  1630,  broken  into  three  parts, and  the  water 
thrice  sprinkled  in  baptism,  in  remembrance  of  the  Trinity. 
The  parishioners,  without  exception,  assembled  at  the  house 
of  their  respective  elders,  [see  quotation  from  Moshemi 
below]  for  communion,  which  was  celebrated  four  times  a 
year;  when  before  Easter,  and  sometimes  before  Christmas, 
each  person  was  required  by  his  pastor  to  give  his  reasons 
for  his  faith. — Before  the  time  of  the  plague,  the  pastors 
were  subject  each  year,  to  a  visit  from  the  moderator, 
and  two  members  of  the  Synod,  who,  after  minute  enquiries, 
made  their  report  to  the  Synod.  The  foreign  clergy  would 
not  submit  to  this  ordinance."  Any  one  acquainted  with 
ecclesiastical  history,  must,  I  think,  perceive  that  he 
speaks  here  of  an  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  though  he  uses 
the  termm  odcrator,  consistently  perhaps,  with  the  modern 
ideas  of  the  Waldenses;  and  that  such  jurisdiction  was  dis- 
allowed by  the  French  and  Swiss  Presbyterian  ministers, 
when  they  took  the  charge   of  the   Waldensian   churches. 

Mosheim,  referring  to  Perrin,  Leger,  Usher,  and  Basnage, 
says,  that  "the  government  of  the  church  was  committed  by 
them  to  Bishops — who  were  also  called  major  ales  or  elders 
—presbyters,  and  deacons;  and  that  they  acknowledged  that 
these  three  ecclesiastical  orders  were  instituted  by  Christ 
himself." 

In  an  apology  for  their  faith,  presented  to  Francis  I.  of 
France,  (1554)  from  the  Waldensian  church,  it  is  said  that 
Bishops  and  pastors  ought  to  be  irreprehensible  in  their 
manners." 

The  late  moderator  Peyrani,  of  a  family  distinguished 
through  a  long  period  of  Waldensian  history;  himself  a  man 
of  unquestioned  talent  and  erudition ;  and  undeniably  better 
acquainted  with  their  history,  than  any  other  man  of  modern 


49 

times,  on  being  asked  by  Mr.  Gillyj  whether  there  had  not 
formerly  been  bishops,  properly  so  called,  in  the  Vaudois 
church,  expressly  answered,  yes. — Tn  a  communication, 
made  by  him  to  the  London  Society  for  propagating  the  Gos- 
pel, in  1820,  he  expressed  his  "regret  at  the  misfortunes 
which  bad  deprived  the  Waldensian  church  of  the  benfit  of 
episcopal  government/' — In  his  second  Letter  to  Cardinal 
Pacca^  coutamed  in  his  Historical  Defence  of  the  Walden- 
ses,  he  says,  that  Peter  Waldo  admitted  the  three  orders  of 
Bishops,  priests  and  deacons^ 

Dr.  Miller  admits  that  the  Bohemian  protestauts  were  a 
branch  of  the  Waldenses.  He  represents  their  historian, 
Comenlus,  as  saying,  that  "there  were  certain  seniors,  who 
performed  certain  duties  for  the  sake  of  order,  but  claimed 
no  superiority,  by  divine  right."  It  is  true,  he  does  not  give 
this  as  an  actual  quotation  from  Comeniusj  but  the  infer- 
ence he  wishes  drawn,  if  the  remark  has  any  bearing  on  the 
subject  before  us,  is,  that  the  Bohemians  were  woi  episcopal; 
yet  he  had  certainly  seen  the  following  passages  which  are 
directly  opposed  to  his  theory.  Comenius  says  in  his  His- 
tory: "The  protestanls  of  Bohemia,  who  were  apprehensive 
that  ordinations,  in  which  presbyters,  and  not  a  Bishop, 
should  create  another  presbyter,  would  not  be  lawful;  and 
wereiii  doubt  how  they  should  be  able  to  mamtain  such  an 
ordination,  either  to  others  whom  they  opposed,  or  to  their 
own  people  when  they  questioned  it — sent  deputies  to  the 
remains  of  the  ancient  Waldenses,  by  whose  Bishops*  these 
deputies  were  consecrated  to  the  episcopaZ  office,  which  they 
have  ever  since  transmitted  to  their  successors."  Certainly, 
this  is  a  very  different  view  of  the  case  from  that  presented 
by  Dr.  MiPer.  The  same  fact  is  stated  in  the  Bohemian 
Book  of  Order  and  Discipline :  "Whereas,  the  said  Walden- 
ses, affirming  that  they  have  lawful  Bishops  and  a  lawful 
uninterrupted  seccession  from  the  Apostles  to  the  present 

5 


60 

day,  did  solemnly  create  three  of  our  ministers  Bishops, 
and  confer  on  them  power  to  ordain  ministers."  These 
Bishops,  so  ordained,  did  not,  however  take  that  name,  but 
were  called  (Semors,  or  superintendants;  and  from  this  trivial 
circumstance,  in  opposition  to  the  fact  of  their  receiving  a 
new  ordination,  when  a\rea.dy priests,  Dr.  M.  would  have  his 
readers  infer  that  they  were  not  Bishops  in  fact  But  Co- 
menius  gives  us  a  reason  for  this.  He  says:  "They  did  not 
take  upon  them  the  name  of  Bishop,on  account  of  the  anti- 
christian  abuse  of  that  name,"  by  the  papal  bishops  around 
them;  just  as  it  was  proposed, as  I  have  stated  above,  in  our 
own  General  Convention,  that  the  American  Bishops  should 
have  a  different  title  because  of  the  odium  then  thought  to 
be  attached  to  that  of  Bishop;  or  just  as  some  of  the  Bishops 
of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  have,  since  the  Reformation,  borne 
the  name  of  superintendants,  while  all  the  rest  are  called 
Bishops.  Surely  Dr.  M.  should  be  cautious  how  he  accu- 
ses others  of  incovipetency  to  discuss  the  subject  of  Episco- 
pacy ! 

But  again ;  Crantz  in  his  Ancient  History  of  the  Mora- 
vian Brethren  says :  "The  Waldenses  traced  the  succession 
of  their  Bishops  from  the  Apostles'*  times.  The  Bohehiians 
sent  three  of  their  priests,  already  ordained,  to  Stephen, 
Bishop  of  the  Waldenses,  who  consecrated  them,  with  the 
assistance  of  his  co-bishop,  to  be  Bishops  of  the  BreihrerCs 
church." — And  again :  In  the  Compendiun  of  the  History 
of  the  Brethren's  church,  written  by  one  of  their  Bishops,  and 
translated  by  La  Trobe,  it  is  said  that  "the  Vallences  traced 
their  doctrines,  and  the  succession  of  their  Bishops,  from  the 
Apostles,  and  the  primitive  christians."  And  yet  again :  "A 
persecution  arose  against  the  Waldenses  in  Austria,  by 
which  they  were  totally  dispersed,  and  their  Bishop  Ste- 
phen, was  burnt  at  Vienna.  Thus  the  wonderful  provi- 
dence of  God  spared  this  last  Bishop  of  the  Waldenses,  un- 


51 

til  he  transmitted  regular  episcopal  ordination  to  the  Breth- 
ren." Cmn^z  names  67  Bishops  of  the  Moravian  Brethren 
from  1735  back  to  Stephen,  Bishop  of  the  Waldenses  in 
1497. 

Dr.  JablowsJfy,  chaplain  to  the  King  of  Prussia,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  last  century,  and  a  Senior  or  Bishop  of  the 
Bohemian  church  in  Poland,  in  a  letter  printed  in  the  second 
volume  of  the  Life  of  Archbishop  Sharp,*  after  asserting 
the  existence  of  episcopacy  in  the  christian  church  for 
1500  years,  "in  all  ages  and  times,  down  from  the  Apostles, 
and  in  all  places  where  there  were  christians,"  adds:  "be- 
fore the  great  Reformation,  when  the  followers  of  Huss  in 
Bohemia  separated  themselves  from  the  Romish  church, 
they  made  it  one  of  their  first  cares  to  preserve  an  episcopal 
svjccession  for  their  little  church,  and  that  by  the  means  of 
some  Bishops  of  the  Vaudois,  at  that  time  there  in  exile, 
which  happened  in  1497." 

But  the  writer,  who,  until  recently  at  least,  has  examined 
the  most  thoroughly'  into  this  question,  was  Dr.  AlliXj  of 
whom  Jones,  in  his  History  of  the  Waldenses,  has  said,  "that 
his  researches  into  the  history  of  the  Waldensian  churches 
entitle  him  to  the  gratitude  of  posterity."  Dr.  Miller  has 
certainly  reason  to  know  something  of  this  writer,  but  he 
has  carefully  abstained  from  any  reference  to  him.     Now, 

♦The  author  of  this  work  says  of  the  Protestant  (Bohemian) 
church  in  Poland:  "Under  the  title  of  Seniors  that  church  has 
kept  up  a  character  very  much  resembling  our  (English)  Bishops. 
These  Seniors  received  a  second  ordination  or  consecration  to  their 
office,  and  none  can  be  received  into  the  ministry  but  ly  the  impo- 
sition of  their  hands."  This  Dr.  Jablowsky  is  the  same  Bishop 
who  conveyed  the  episcopal  succession  to  the  Bohemian  brethren, 
who  fled  from  Moravia  to  Hernhutt,  from  which  the  United  Breth- 
ren, or  Moravians,  of  this  country  derive  their  ministry.  There  are 
now  several  Moravian  Bishops  in  America.  No  one  can  question 
the  lawfulness  of  their  episcopacy. 


52 

Dr.  Allix  asserts  positively,  that  the  Waldensss  distinguished 
their  cler^jy  into  three  orders,  Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons. 
And  he  produces  numerous  unquesiionable  proofs  of  this 
assertion.  The  following  will  suffice  here.  He  quotes  an 
ancient  writer  as  saying,  that  "they  hold  that  no  other  or- 
ders ought  to  be  retained  in  the  church,  but  those  of  priests, 
deacons,  and  Bishops:""  a  })assagc  evidently  written  against 
the  Roman  Catholic  pretensions. 

Sleidan,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  says,  that  the 
Bohemian  people  were  divided  into  three  classes,  or  sects. 
Of  the  third  sect,  (or  Waldenses,)  he  says  that  they  admitted 
nothing  but  the  Bible,  as  the  ground  of  their  doctrine,  and 
that  they  chose  their  own  priests  and  bishops. 

The  Christian  Observer, 1815,  page  65,  in  noticing  Sims' 
Memoir  of  the  Waldenses,  says,  expressly:  "The  ancient 
Waldenses  were  Episcopalians.'^''  In  the  same  work  for 
182S,  page  254,  in  a  review  of  several  authors  on  the  Wal- 
denses, it  is  said:  "Some  modern  publications  have  claimed 
the  authority  of  the  Waldenses,  as  far  as  that  is  of  weight 
in  controversy,  as  unfavorable  to  episcopacy;  but  we  con- 
ceive the  fact  is  far  otherwise.  The  subject  is  discussed  at 
some  length  by  Mr.  Sims,  the  editor  of  Peyran.  The  proofs 
he  adduces  of  there  having  been  the  i/iree  orders  of  Bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons,  amongst  the  ancient  Vaudois,  are  am- 
ple and  conclusive.  Peyran  asserts  in  his  second  letter  to 
cardinal  Pacca,jthat  Peter  Waldo  of  Lyons  admitted  these 
tJiree  orders.  From  the  Lyonese  branch  of  the  Waldenses, 
many  of  whom  together  with  Waldo,  settled  finally  in  Bohe- 
mia, the  United  Brethren,  received  episcopacy  into  their  in- 
fant church.  In  ihe  year  1715,  a  branch  of  this  church,  in 
Great  Poland  and  Polish  Russia,  was  recommended  for  re- 
lief to  the  British  government,  by  Archbishop  Wake,  after 
an  inquiry  into  its  episcoj)al  character,  and  its  present  and 
former  state,  in  a  correspondence  between   that  prelate  and 


53 

Dr.  Jdbloioshj.  At  a  later  period  Archbishop  Potter  ex- 
pressly stated,  respecting  the  Hernhutt  branch  of  the  Bohe- 
mian and  Moravian  brethren,  that  "no  Englishman  who  had 
any  notion  of  ecclesiastical  history  could  doubt  of  their  epis- 
copal succession." 

The  Dublin  Christian  Examiner,  vol.  iv.  p.  355,  in  giv 
ing  an  account  of  Abp.  Usher^s  collection  of  Waldensian 
MSS.  deposited  in  the  Library  of  Trinity  College  in  that 
city,  says;  "The  Episcopal  Reformed  church  is  eminently 
bound  to  assist  the  VValdenses,  not  only  the  witnesses  of  the 
truth  of  the  doctrines  which  v.e  hold  in  common  with  other 
prolestants,  but  they  are  evidences  of  the  high  antiquity  of 
our  form  of  church  government,  which  they  claim  to  have 
been  transmitted  to  them  from  the  apostolic  times."  Again: 
the  same  work,  conducted  with  unquestioned  talent  and 
learning,  in  a  review  of  Gilly's  Excursion  to  Piedmont,  vol. 
1.  p.  527,  says,  "The  episcopal  succession  and  character 
were  retained  in  acknowledged  purity  for  centuries  after  the 
establishment  of  the  Vaudois  church,  as  independent  of 
Rome." 

The  British  Critic,  1826,  p.  386,  says,  "the  Vaudois 
church  was  actually  episcopal  till  the  distresses  of  the  times, 
augmented  by  a  dreadful  pestilence,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  threw  them  into  the  arms  of  Switzer- 
land." 

The  late  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson,  an  eminent  Presbyterian  di- 
vine, of  Philadelphia,  whose  talents  and  learning  need  no 
commendation  from  any  one,  and  who  evidently  had  patiently 
examined  this  question,  says  of  the  VValdenses,  that  they 
"were  covertly  episcopal,  though  after  Claude  (of  Turin) 
not  papal;  but  never  preshyterial prior  to  the  Helvetic  abju- 
ration of  popery." 

And,  lastly,  I  think  I  may  adduce  here  a  reluctant  and 
awkward  testimony  from  Dr.  Miller  himself.     In  hisEisay 
6* 


54 

on  the  office  of  Lay  Elder,  speaking  of  tlie  Bohemian  brancti 
of  the  Waldenses,  he  distinctly  admits  that  those  churches  had 
some  features  in  their  system  of  church  order,  which  were 
not  sincily  Preshyierian:  *' That  those  churches  gave  the 
title  of  Seniors,  but  more  frequently  of  Antistitea  to  certain 
elderly  clergymen,  who  were  pecuharly  venerable  in  their 
character,  and  who  chiefly  took  the  lead  in  all  ordinationSy 
i?,  no  doubt  true," — When  this  statement  is  compared  with 
the  quotation  above  from  Comenius,  and  with  the  extract 
from  the  Life  of  Abp.  Sharp,  in  thenoteon  page 51  it  will  be 
plainly  seen  that  the  Bohemians  not  only  were  not  Presbyte- 
rian, but  certainly  were  Episcopal,  and  that  Dr.  Miller  might 
as  well  have  distinctly  said  so. 

You  may  now  judge,  with  what  propriety  I  insisted,  in  the 
Letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  American  Presbyterian  that  "the 
Waldenses  had  episcopacy  established  among  them." 

Let  us  now  examine  the  testimony  which  Dr.  M.  adduces 
to  show  that  the  Waldenses  were  not,  at  any  period  of  their 
history.  Episcopalians,  but  were  always  Presbyterians.  He 
quotes  or  refers  to  Eneas  Sylvius,  Medina,  BellarminCf 
Perrin,  Moreland,  Rainolds,  Scott,  Heylin,  Locke,  and 
Comenius,  and  says  that  "aZ/  these  witnesses  were  prela- 
tistsP  Is  Dr.  Miller  indeed  serious  in  this  declaration?  He 
well  knows  that  the  first  three  were  Roman  Catholics,  and 
yet  he  seems  to  desire  (hat  his  readers  should  understand 
them  to  be  prelatists,  in  the  sense  in  which  he  applies  that 
term  to  the  members  of  our  Protestant  church!  What  are 
we  to  think  of  the  candor  or  justice  of  such  a  representation? 
Perrin  was  a  Waldensian,  and  he  cites  him  to  show  that  they 
were  Presbyterians,  yet  he  too  is  here  called  a  i)relatist! 
Sir  Samuel  Moreland,  was  a  Presbyterian,  employed  by 
Oliver  Cromwell,  as  his  agent  among  the  Waldenses,  yet 
Dr.  M.  calls  him  too  a  prelatisti    And  did  he  not  know  that 


55 

the  faiiiilv  o( Locu-e  were  dissenters;  and  that,  though  he  was 
connected  with  ihe  English  church  through  a  portion  of  his 
life,  vet,  he  never  expressed  an  attachment  to  episcopacy,  but 
rather  the  contrary  ?  How  then  can  he  be  called  a  prclatisti 
Rainolds,\v<is  a  puritan f  hut  no  EpiscopaHan,  as  Dr.  M's. 
quotation  from  him  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  prove;  and 
yet  he  too  is  now  aprelatist!  Of  the  whole  number,  Heylin 
^nd  Comenius  are  the  only  two  who  have  ever,  T  believe, 
in  any  sense  advocated  the  principle  of  protestant  Episcopa- 
cy; and  yet,  when  it  will  in  some  way,  serve  Dr.  Miller's 
purpose,  they  are  all — all  prelatists! 

And  now  let  us  notice  the  manner  in  which  he  cites  them, 
and  the  value  of  their  testimony. 

He  quotes  Eneas  Sylvius  as  saying,  that  the  Waldenses 
"deny  the  hierarchy;  maintaining  that  there  is  no  difference 
among  priests,  by  reason  of  dignity  of  office."  This  is 
another  specimen  of  his  own  manner  of  quoting.  Allix  and 
Jones,  severally  quote  the  passage  thus:  "They  hold  that 
ihe  pope  of  Rome  is  not  superior  to  the  bishops,  and  that 
there  is  no  difference  as  to  rank  and  dignity  among  priests.''' 
Br  esse  quotes  it  in  nearly  the  same  manner.  (See  page  47.) 
This  passage,  when  fairly  quoted,  has  a  sense  precisely  op- 
posite to  that  which  Dr.  Miller,  by  a  'partial  quotation,  seeks 
to  give  to  it.  Is  it  difficult  then  to  understand,  what  Eneas 
Sylvius,  and  Medina,  and  Bellarmine,  mean  by  charging 
the  Waldenses  with  denying  the  hierarchy?  Dr.  Miller,  in- 
deed, suppresses  their  own  explanation  of  what  they  mean 
by  the  charge ;  but  other  and  honorable  writers  tell  us  that 
Eneas  Sylvius  says,  that  they  denied  the  hierarchy  by  main- 
taining that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  not  superior  to  other  Bi- 
shops, and  that  there  is  no  difference  among  priests.  In 
what  sense  is  this  a  denial  that  the  Waldenses  were  Episco- 
pal? Dr.  M.  says,  that  "no  impartial  man  who  reads  the  ac- 
counts of  Perrin  and  Moreland,  can  hesitate  to  admit  that 


56 

th3  Waldenses  were  Presbyterians  in  church  government;" 
but  yet  he  adds,  "I  know  that  a  different  construction  is  put, 
by  some,  on  their  account;  but  in  my  opinion,  by  the  hlind- 
eat 'prejudiced  This  is  Dr.  Miller's  gentle  and  charitable 
jnode  ot^  admitting  that  there  are  persons  who  think  differ- 
ently from  him  en  the  subject,  and  is  sufficient  of  itself  to 
cause  candid  readers  to  distrust  his  judgment.  The  fact  is, 
that  though  Perrin  vvas  one  of  the  Waldensian  ministers,  and 
wrote  a  history  of  their  church,  (which  has  been  much  cen- 
sured by  later  writers  for  its  many  errors,)  yet  it  is  believed 
that  there  is  no  unequivocal  expression  in  it,  from  which  a 
fair  inference  can  be  drawn  in  favor,  either  of  episcopacy, 
or  presbytenanism.  Sir  S.  Moreland  was  himself  a  Pres- 
byterian,  and  visited  Piedmont  after  the  plague,  and  when 
the  French  and  Swiss  Calvinistic  ministers  had  charge  of 
the  churches;  he  could  not  therefore  be  expected  to  see  ought 
like  episcopacy  among  them;  and  copying  Perrin,  even  in 
his  errors,  is  not  to  be  elevated  above  him  as  authority. — 
Dr.  Miller's  next  witness  is  Dr.  Rainolds,  whom  he  calls 
"an  eminently  learned  Episcopal  divine.'*'  Dr.  M.  quotes 
him  as  saying,  that  "all  those  who  have  for  five  hundred 
years  past  endeavored  the  reformation  of  the  church,  have 
taught  that  all  pastors,  whether  called  Bishops,  or  priests, 
are  invested  with  equal  authority  and  power:  as  first  the 
Waldensesj  next  Marcius  Petavinus;  Wicklifte  and  his  dis- 
ciples; Huss  and  the  Hussites,''''  &c.  To  this,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  reply,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Bowden,  in  reference 
to  the  same  assertion :  "Very  well.  Rainolds  was  as  liable 
to  mistake  as  Dr.  Miller.  What  either  asserts,  in  opposition 
to  numerous  and  positive  testimonies,  has  not  the  weight  of 
a  feather  in  the  scale  of  evidence."  It  is  amazing,  that,  in 
the  face  of  his  quotation.  Dr.  Miller  should  call  him  an 
Episcopalian.  Dr.  Miller  himself  admits,  in  his  Treatise 
on  the  office  of  Ruling  Elder,  that  the  churches  of  Bohemia, 


57 

who,  Mosheim  says,  were  descended  from  the  better  sort  of 
Hussites,  were  not  strictly   Presbyterian;  nay,  more,   he 
proves  in  the  quotation  which  I  have  made  from  this  same 
work  above,  (p.  54")  the  existence  of  a  decided  wiparity  among 
them. — It  is  very  obvious  from  the  testimony  which  I  have 
adduced   above,  in  relation  to  the  actual  episcopacy  of  the 
Waldenses,  that  Mr.  Scott,  Dr.  Miller's  next  witness — proba- 
bly, from  not  being  aware  of  their  occasional  substitution  of 
other  terms  for  that  of  Bishop^must  have   misconceived 
Maurel,  the  Waldensian  pastor,  when  he  understands  him  as 
saying  in  a  letter,  that  the  ordeis  of  Bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons, did  not  exist  in  their  ministry.     Scott's  work  is  not, 
however,  within  my  reach  at  present. — Dr.  M.  next  extracts 
from  Locke'^s  works,  a  statement,  that  it  was  said  by  some 
one — in  reply  to  a  very  correct  assertion  of  a  Bishop  ot 
Winchester,  that  "there  was  no  christian  church  before  Cal 
vin  that  had  not  Bishops" — that  "the  Albigenses  (Waldenses) 
had  no  Bishops."     As  the  debates  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
in  which  these  remarks  were  made,  occurred  as  late  as  1675, 
near  half  a  century  after  the  change  of  discipline  introduced 
by  the  French  and  Swiss  ministers,  it  was  doubtless  true: 
the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses  had  then  no  Bishops.     But 
Dr.  M.  quotes  Locke  himself  as  remarking  on  this  discus- 
sion, that  "it  was  very  true  what  the  Bishop  of  Winchester 
replied,  that  they  [the  Albigenses]  had  some  among  them 
who  alone  had  power  to  ordain;  but  that  was  only  to  com- 
mit that  power  to  the  wisest  and  gravest  among  them,  and  to 
secure  ill  and  unfit  men  from  being  admitted  to  the  ministry; 
but  they  exercised  no  jurisdiction  over  the  others."     But 
surely  Locke  ought  to  have  added,  that  this  power  committed 
to  the  wisest  and  gravest  men,  was  so  committed  by  special 
election  and  ordmation,  for  such  was  the  fact;  and  that  this 
fact,  though  it  does  not  prove  the  existence  of  such  a  hierar- 
chy as  was  then,  and  still  is  in  England,  yet  establishes  the 


58 

existence  of  a  simple,  primitive  Episcopacy,  in  three  orders; 
by  what  name  soever  the  superior,  or  ordaininc;  order,  may  be 
called,  and  whether  with  greater  or  less  jurisdiction.  That  it 
had  5ome  jurisdiction!  have  shown  above  from  Bresse;  and 
the  express  language  of  so  diligent  and  accurate  a  historian  as 
Mosheim,  in  regard  to  a  matter  of  fact,  is  sufficient  quite  to 
overturn  the  construction  or  inference  of  Locke  in  relation 
to  it. — From  his  next  witness,  Comenius,  Dr.  Miller  makes 
no  quotation.  The  quotations  from  him  above  (p.49-50)  will 
sufficiently  show  that  his  testimony  is  decidedly  adverse  to 
Dr.  M's.  opinion.  Yet,  as  showing  upon  what  varied  testi- 
mony Dr.  M.  is  willing  to  rely,  and  as  furnishing  a  contrast, 
almost  ludicrous,  when  we  remember  Dr.  M's.  object  in 
citing  them,  let  us  view  his  last  three  witnesses  together. 
He  represents  Locke  as  saying,  "that  they  had  some  among 
them  who  alone  had  the  power  to  ordain" — Comenius,  ns  say- 
ing expressly  that  they  had  "certain  Seniors  [so  called]  who 
performed  certain  duties  [ordination]  for  the  sake  of  order"- — 
and  Heylin,  that  they  had  fallen  upon  a  "way  of  ordaining 
ministers  among  themselves,  imthont  having  recourse  to  the 
Bishop,  or  an^/  such  superior  officer  as  a  superintendant." 
Is  Dr.  M.  incapable  of  seeing  that  such  discordant  testimo- 
nies as  these  can  be  of  no  service  in  testifying  to  a  matter 
of  fact?  And  yet  he  speaks  of  a  "marvellous  harmony 
among  these  learned  and  unbiassed  witnesses."  I  marvel 
much  where  he  finds  that  harmony,  and  so,  I  doubt  not,  will 
my  readers! 

You  can  no\,^  judge  what  reliance  can  be  placed  on  Dr. 
Miller's  testimony  against  the  episcopacy  of  the  Waldenses; 
and  whether  that  fact  is  not  as  well  attested  as  any  in  his- 
tory. 

VIII.  To  Dr.  Miller's  last  topic,  I  do  not  see  that  any  reply 
is  required  other  than  the  speedy  publication,  and  extensive 
circulation  of  the  volume  to  which  it  refers — Bishop  Onder-- 


69 

donk's  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,  and  the  various  re- 
plies and  rejoinders  it  called  forth.  Dr.  M.  meant,  undoubt- 
edly, to  be  very  severe  in  the  expression  of  his  opinion,  re- 
specting what  he  is  pleased  to  call  my  "singular  gasconade." 
ButDr.  M's.  opinion  on  any  subject  connected  wilh  episco- 
pacy, will,  I  think,  not  have  much  weight  with  those  who 
have  accompanied  me  thus  far,  in  the  examination  of  his 
arguments  and  proofs.  It  is,  however,  singular  in  him  to 
be  found  concurring  at  all  with  Episcopalians  in  relation  t(j 
episcopacy ;  and  as  both  parties  seem  satisfied  with  this  pro- 
posed publication  of  their  several  arguments;  although,  as  in 
some  former  cases  of  the  kind,  the  work  of  editing  and  pub- 
lishing is  left  to  Episcopalians;  it  is  hoped  that  it  will  be 
generally  read,  and  thoroughly  understood  by  ail  who  read 
it. 

These  eight  points  are  all,  in  reference  to  the  Letter,  whicn 
Dr.  M.  conceived  to  call  for  his  attention.  I  pointed  out  in  the 
Letter  numerous  inconsistencies  in  opinions,  and  statements, 
and  arguments,  of  which  he  has  noticed  those  only  on  which, 
as  he  confesses,  he  has  been  often  pressed, — his  opinions 
of,  and  quotations  from,  Ignatius.  He  has  not  at  all  attempted 
to  vindicate  himself  from  the  inconsistency  of  disallowing 
Theodoret'^s  testimony  in  relation  to  a  fact  in  primitive  his- 
tory, because  he  was  distant  four  centuries  from  the  fact-- 
and  yet  quoting  Dr.  Barrow,  who  lived  sixteen  centuries 
later,  as  authority  in  reference  to  the  same  fact — or  of  de- 
nying, in  the  words  of  Barrow,  that  the  apostolical  office 
was  at  all  succeesive,  and  yet  professedly  quoting  Ignatius  to 
show,  that  presbyters  were  the  successors  to  '•Hhe  bench  of 
the  apostles"— wor,  to  mention  no  others,  the  following ;  which, 
that  it  may  be  more  plainly  seen,  I  now  place  in  paralell 
columns : — Dr.  Miller  says,  in  relation  to  the  ministry —  • 


60 

Jn  his  Tract  1835.  (  In   his   Letters    on  Ministry 

The  scripture  testimony  of  our  1805  &  30. 

Episcopal  brethren  is  in  no  one  in-  j  Whoever  expects  to  find 
stance  direct  and  explicit,  but  j  any  formal  or  explicit  decla- 
all  indirect  and  remotely  infer-  !  rations  on  this  subject,  delivered 
rential. — p.  55.  by   Christ    or  his  apostles,   will 

Again:  be  disappointed. — p.  26. 

They  (Episcopalians)  do  not  :  As^ain: 
pretend  to  quote  a  single  passage  While  the  scrip'.ures  present  7J0 
of  scripture  which  declares  in  so  formal  or  explicit  directions 
many  words,  or  any  thing  on  this  subject,  we  find  in  them  a 
like  it,  in  favor  of  their  claim,  tnode  of  ■  expresnon,  and  a 
but  their  whole  reliance  in  re-  number  of  facts ^  from  which 
gard  to  scriptural  testinjony,  is  we  may  without  difficulty,  as- 
placed  on /if/f /s  a^nd  deductions  '  certain  the  outlines  of  the  aposto- 
from  those  facts. — lb.  i  lie  plan  of  ci»urch  order.— 2?.  27. 

These,  certainly,  are  gross  inconsistencies;  and  if  Dr. 
M.  wishes  that  his  opinions  and  arguments  should  have 
weight  with  men  to  whom  principle  is  of  more  value  than 
party,  it  largely  behoves  him  to  explain  them.  All  his  rail- 
ing at  my  ignorance  or  incompetency,  will  not  remove  the 
impressions  which  such  discrepancies  are  calculated  to  make 
on  men  who  are  really  impartial,    and  love  the  truth. 

Had  not  sufficient  been  already  alleged  to  show  the  dispo- 
sition of  Dr.  Miller  in  relation  to  the  Episcopal  church,  I 
might  proceed  to  a  much  greater  extent  in  the  collection  of 
facts  from  his  own  writino-s.     Yet  I  cannot  avoid  a  few  ad- 

o 

ditional  remarks,  in  reference  to  the  manner  which  this  gen- 
tleman has  so  long  accustomed  himself  to  exhibit  towards 
those  who  differ  from  him,  that  it  is,  perhaps,  now  not  easy 
to  himself  to  be  aware  of  it.  Notwithstanding  the  earnest 
love  of  peace,  which  he  professes  to  inculcate,  at  the  close 
of  the  article  in  the  American  Presbyterian  which  has 
occasioned  this  Letter,  he  has  been  more  engaged  in  theo- 
logical controversies,  than,  perhaps,  any  other  man  of  our 
age  and  country;  and  has  never,  I  believe,  passed  by  any 
plausible  occasion  for  a  controversy  with  Episcopalians,  or 
on  the  subject  of  episcopacy.     In  every  instance,  I  believe 


61 

without  exception,  his  opponents  have  complained  of  his  sin- 
gularly positive  and  dogmatical  manner;  of  his  negligence  in 
making  quotations;  and  of  his  general  want  of  candor  to- 
wards an  adversary.  He  appears  to  consider  it  as  a  con- 
ceded and  settled  principle,  that  he  alone,  of  all  men,  is 
placed  on  the  pinnacle  of  truth,  beyond  the  possibility  of  er- 
ror, or  of  correction.  He  very  seldom,  if  at  all,  manifests 
any  respect  whatever  for  the  opinions  of  those  who  differ 
from  him.  If  they  charge  him  with  error,  misconception, 
misquotation,  or  inconsistency,  however  plain  may  be  the  tes- 
timony, the  charge  is  a  slander.  If  they  take  a  different 
view  of  any  facts  or  opinions  from  his,  it  is  only  by  the 
blindest  'prejudice.  If  any  historical  fact  is  alleged  to  have 
been  stated  by  authors,  even  of  established  reputation,  in  a 
way  to  militate  with  any  theory  of  his,  they  are  not  candid 
or  well  informed  men;  are  of  had  faith,  or  little  reflection:^ 
the  very  language — the  identical  expressions  which  he  him- 
self applies  to  the  systems  or  doctrines  of  others,  when  ap- 
plied to  his  own,  are  unsparing  calumny — blind  and  unhal- 
lowed abuse.]     He  freely  applies  such  terms  as  bigots.,  de- 

*See  his  Tract  on  Preshyterianism,  p.  31,  and  also  his  Letter 
*o  a  Gentleman  of  Baltimore  in  reference  to  the  case  of  the  Ret. 
Mr.  Duncan. 

tin  his  Tract  on  Preshyterianism,  p.  24,  speaking  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system  of  religious  doctrine,  he  says:  "It  has  been  by 
multitudes  rlefamed,  as  an  abominable  system,  revolting  to  every 
dictate  of  reason,  f/isAonora&J  to  God,  unfriendly  to  christian 
comfort',  adapted  to  beget  discouragement  and  despair  on  the  one 
hand,  or  presumption  and  licentiousness  on  the  other."  He  terms 
this,  and  such  like  language,  "unsparing  calumny" — "blind  and 
unhallowed  abuse." — Yet  in  his  Continuation  oj  his  Letters  on 
the  Ministry  p.  338,  he  says  of  the  Anti-Calvinistic  system,  that 
•'it  is  inconsistent  with  itself,  dishonorable  to  God^  and  comfort- 
leu  to  man.**  How  remarkable  is  the  correspondence  between 
these  expressions  and  those  which  he  complains  that  the  opponeote 
of  Calvinism  are  in  the  habit  of  applying  to  his  creed! 

6 


62 

luded,  sectarian,  profoundly  ignorant,  disgraceful,  narrow 
views,  sinister  purpose,  abettors  of  popish  doctrine,  ruffian, 
insolence,  falsehood  and  meanness,  upon  his  opponents,  and 
yet  connplains  of  personal  indecorums  towards  himself.* 
He  nnay  term  the  pretensions  of  Episcopalians  in  regard 
to  the  ministry  an  imposition  upon  popular  credulity — he 
may  declare  that  their  religious  doctrines  lead  to  blank  and 
cheerless  atheism — that  they  are  quite  as  likely  to  land  the 
believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned  as  in  the  paradise  of 
God,  and  none  must  deny,  object  to,  or  complain  of  such 
bitter  imputations  and  proscriptions;  but  a  word  in  behalf  of 
episcopacy — the  assertion  that  it  was  exclusively  of  apos- 
tolic origin — is  an  unchurching  of  the  residue  of  the  christian 
world,  and  casting  them  out  to  uncovenanted  mercy. — He 
may  represent  episcopacy  as  the  idol  ofhighchurch  men;  to 
the  worship  of  which  they  are  willing  to  give  their  days  and 
nights,  and  ihemsehes  umvearied  worshipers  of  sect,  but  any 
attempt  to  disprove,  or  evade  the  effect  of  such  imputations, 
is  misrepresentation,  slander,  and  vengeance  J 

In  the  article  which  I  have  now  been  employed  in  noticing, 
published  as  it  was  in  a  religious  paper,  edited  by  highly 
respectable  gentlemen,  he  does  not  scruple  to  apply,  nor  they 
to  publish  in  reference  to  me,  many  of  the  expressions  above 
quoted-     He  accuses  me  of  having  lent  myself  to  the  propa- 

♦Let  us  observe  how  he  regards  such  language  when  appHed  to 
himself.  In  the  dissensions,  which  have  for  some  time  past  pre- 
vailed in  his  own  church,  some  of  these  terms  have  been  annexed 
to  his  name.  In  his  Letters  to  the  Presbyterians  (1833)  he 
writes  thus  on  the  subject:  "To  call  a  man  bigoted,  a  sectarian, 
or  a  high—churchman,  because  he  decisively  prefers  to  all  others 
the  church  to  which  he  lias  solemnly  pledged  his  membership  and 
his  affection:  and  to  insist  that  he  is  equally  bound  to  approve, 
and  equally  bound  to  sustain,  all  other  denominations; — is  as  per- 
fect an  affront  to  commoa  sense,  as  it  is  to  every  sober  eeclesias- 
ieal   principle." 


63 

gation  of  slander i  of  being  actuated  by  a  spirit  of  toen- 
geance:  —he  compares  me  to  a  ruffian  j — he  intimates  that 
the  course  pursued  towards  him  is  a  compound  of  insolence, 
falsehood  and  meanness,  deserving  the  indignation  of  every 
decent  man]  he  charges  me  with  profound  ignorance — with 
having  repeated  a  charge,  which  (though  previously  made 
against  him  by  accomplished  and  pious  scholars),  was  adap- 
ted to  disgrace  myself: — he  calls  me  a  reckless  adversary  :- 
he  intimates  that  I  have  not  intelligence  enough  to  understand 
the  plainest  sentence,  &c. 

It  was  in  consequence  of  his  frequent  and  continued  ex- 
hibitions of  such  feelings,  and  of  a  conduct  towards  his  op- 
ponents so  ungenerous,  and  unbecoming  his  profession  as  a 
minister  of  the  Gospel,  that  it  was  said  of  him,  more  than 
ten  years  since,  by  one  of  his  opponents,  who  was  not  an 
Episcopalian,  that  "of  all  the  theological  writers  of  the  pres- 
ent time,  in  this  country,  he  has  the  distinction  of  being  the 
most  bitterly  and  perseveringly  illiberal,-  we  know  not  of 
what  kind  of  fame  he  may  be  ambitious,  but  if  he  continues 
much  longer  in  the  course  which  he  is  pursuing,  he  will  be 
regarded  by  all  the  moderate  and  juoicious,  and  he  will  go 
down  to  posterity,  as  the  arch  bigot  of  his  day.  If  that  is  a 
reputation  which  he  covets  he  is  m  a  fair  way  of  acquiring 

it;' 

His  exertions  to  this  end  do  not  appear  to  have  been  in- 
termitted since  that  period. 

Whether  you  shall  adopt  this  judgment  of  Dr.  Miller,  or 
not,  I  am  confident  you  will  approve  the  expression,  with 
which  I  conclude,  of  my  determination  to  take  no  further 
notice  of  the  productions  of  Dr.  Miller's  controversial  pen. 

December,  1835. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01185  8059 


